1990Hullaballoo said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

docb said:

---

I agree with that. I think some of the problem with what's happening down there is that the city of Corpus Christi has known for a long time that this was going go be a big problem and they just did not address it sooner despite the warnings.

---

They have been working on addressing it for a great number of years now, actually.

---

You mean like completely draining Choke Canyon and most of Mathis?

---

100% agree on that

I agree, but at least they could leave enough in it to launch a boat.

It's been several months since anything but a very small boat could launch.

1990Hullaballoo said:

---

I agree, but at least they could leave enough in it to launch a boat.

It's been several months since anything but a very small boat could launch.

---

I've always laughed at people around where I live that swear they'll never see these local lakes fill up again. But I'm beginning to believe Choke may never fill up again as the water is just sent straight down. I hate to see it.

OK, I'll bite. Exactly HOW did central Texas bleed those two dry?

This should be good.

And yes, I know recreation is secondary purpose for almost all reservoirs in Texas.

Somewhat on the topic, can one of our resident water experts give their opinion of SB 7?

I sent an email to my representative, had a conversation with their staff where I'm not sure if they appreciated my input or not (the tone was difficult to interpret over text), and they directed me to SB 7 as a part of their work to address the water problem the state is facing.

I would love a more informed opinion than my own (6 hours of water laws and ethics classes and that's it).

Thanks

schmellba99 said:

---

1990Hullaballoo said:

---

I agree, but at least they could leave enough in it to launch a boat.

It's been several months since anything but a very small boat could launch.

---

You do realize that recreation is wholly a secondary aspect of water supply reservoirs, correct?

---

Interestingly, recreational use of water came up during the discussions in front of TWDB regarding declaring an interregional conflict between Planning Regions C and D over the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in NE Texas. While the Dallas area is claiming a great "need" for new water sources, a member of the public enterred a comment including a list of a new bunch of water parks, golf courses, etc. that had recently been approved that would increase the water demand for purely recreational purposes.

One of the things we are going to eventually have to face up to in Texas in the coming years is a serious discussion about prioritizing "beneficial uses" of water over frivolous and/or wasteful uses. It is going to be a brutal battle that will leave a lot of bruises, but as scarcity of water and prices for new supplies increase, it is a conversation that needs to happen in the state legislature. I am not one to normally want to invite more state level regulation, but left to our own on this issue, we are eventually going to run every spring in the hill country dry and destroy the ecosystems of many of our rivers. It is a situation where the state needs to start bringing the property development process into line with the water supply availability and force hard choices about how we use our water supplies.

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Somewhat on the topic, can one of our resident water experts give their opinion of SB 7?

I sent an email to my representative, had a conversation with their staff where I'm not sure if they appreciated my input or not (the tone was difficult to interpret over text), and they directed me to SB 7 as a part of their work to address the water problem the state is facing.

I would love a more informed opinion than my own (6 hours of water laws and ethics classes and that's it).

Thanks

---

Is there something in particular you want to know about it? I know somebody that is directly involved in evaluating it and working with the various parties and can get some details if you have specific concerns. The quote I just got when I asked was a big sigh and "There are layers..."

My limited understanding is that it puts up a $20 Billion dollar fund for water projects that will be voted on by the public in November, has changes to funding and managing water conveyance, and also a rider to ask TWDB to consider adding wastewater to the state water planning process. Beyond that, I am not an expert on it.

Good summary on the Frio. The decrease in natural spring flows due al all those straws lowering the groundwater levels also contributes to lower flow in the Frio and many other Hill Country and South Texas rivers.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLljXd8Jvcr/?igsh=MWRibThqcTdpZzZ3dQ==
I'm sorry but I just don't trust these people

txags92 said:

---

docb said:

---

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLljXd8Jvcr/?igsh=MWRibThqcTdpZzZ3dQ==
I'm sorry but I just don't trust these people

---

There is a huge assumption involved in that objection, which is the assumption that the hypersalinity of the bay we measure today has been that way forever and has not been induced by human activities reducing the flows to bay from upstream. I don't think anybody has the data to prove that either direction. If they have, I haven't found it online.

---

I just don't like that he says it's going to make it better. He sounds like just someone trying to push his agenda with no scientific backing.

Need for Written Public Comment - Baffin Bay to Receive Reverse Osmosis Reject Water up to 10 million gallons per day in to Alazan Bay.

Many of your are hearing through social media that there is a plan in development for Baffin Bay to receive the concentrated reverse osmosis (RO) reject water that's going to be coming from a brackish water well in Driscoll Texas. The discharge will be into a tributary creek that will then flow into Alazan Bay and then into Baffin Bay.

The short of it
There is no research or data documenting that discharging a brackish well water to a surface stream that runs into a bay that basically does not ebb and flow with current or otherwise refresh itself (essentially in a system that only concentrates any and all potential pollutants in it).
There is no data for the constituents of the discharge (they don't know what's in it and are downplaying the potential for pollutants saying it's only some dissolved salts (Total Dissolved Solids TDS). They want the least expensive option to discharge the water after the reverse osmosis process.
It's actually supposed to discharge water that is on the fresher side in the range of 10ppt (with also unknown pollutants such as possibly arsenic and more nitrogen which do occur in the aquifer they are pulling from). Alazan and Baffin average between 36 to 45ppt. The ultimate expansion of the plant could result in approximately 10 million gallons per day of water into Baffin. Baffin has adapted over 1000's of years to be a hyper-saline bay not needing freshwater input like our upper coast bays.
Basically they are treating Baffin (and anyone that has fished it and want to fish it in the future) as a lab rat. They are willing to take a risk of changing Baffin (and possibly the Upper Laguna Madre), the lively hood of many guides, the experience of thousands of fisherman, the commercial drum industry, and it's associated restaurants based on poor or non existent science and spin.

Please make a public comment thru this link to the City of Corpus Christi, Tx. The proposed next plant is to be in Driscoll, Tx within Nueces County (that's the tie to CC city council). Corpus Christi may also receive future water from this well. We need the these cities to see that there is risk in loosing tax revenue and real dollars if the discharge to Baffin (and ultimately the ULM) degrades recreational and commercial fishing.

Written Comment link
Public Comment & Input Form

Your argument points could be:
You come many miles away to fish Baffin and the ULM for spotted sea trout and black drum
When you do, you spend money in Nueces County and Corpus Christi Texas for fishing and hunting guides, tackle, equipment, lodging, food, and other related cost such as truck, boat, or trailer repair (if applicable).
If Baffin Bay or the Upper Laguna Madre fishing and hunting is degraded you won't come there and will be forced to go spend your money elsewhere.
In my case, living in Corpus, if something happened to the fishing here... myself and many guides will move and take our money to Port Mansfield and South Padre Island.
Request that the discharge of the RO water is not discharged to tributaries that lead to Baffin Bay. Suggest they should consider other options such as disposing in a well but not discharge to Baffin Bay or it's tributaries.
Don't feel like your comment has to be scientific. There are those that are doing that including myself, but you just need to say that you are a stakeholder as well.


Who should comment?
Anyone that has ever fished Baffin or the ULM
Anyone who might fish Baffin or ULM in the future
Please share this with out of town guest as well that you might take to Baffin in the future. They need to see that Baffin is not a local resources to test, it's a potential economic loss if the experiment doesn't work.
Please consider taking action. There is no wrong action... in the end there is only regret of not taking action.
Other resources:
Harte Research Institute (TAMU)
HRI Article and Statement

CCA's Public Comment (yeah I know CCA does questionable stuff but they're are helping here).
CCA Public Statement



Sample Starter Statement you can make (I'm not providing a blanket letter to copy and paste because as a former person in that field I can tell you that duplicate copies are not valued as highly as individual personal experiences as comments).
---------
Dear Corpus Christ City Council Member.

I strongly oppose the discharge of any reverse osmosis reject water to any tributary of Baffin Bay. Baffin Bay is a unique water body in Texas that brings millions of dollars of revenue to your city and Nueces county thru recreational and commercial fishing and hunting.

Take it from there.... use some of the above argument points and state your case or add your own viewpoint.

In the end, if the bay gets degraded by the discharge, you, your guest, and your financial inputs to the area and surrounding area will go elsewhere.

Please take a few minutes and do this for the trout fishing community.

Copy and paste and credited to Tobin Strickland.

OK, you are considering the Frio watershed as "Central" Texas. In that case, yes that is where much of the problem lies. I thought you were going to go further north and east.

I lived in Utopia for 10 years and understand all too well the increased demand on the ground and surface water resources in the area. Too many people in too little space for the resource. And they all want a luscious, immense green yard.

I also believe the Chihuahua desert is moving slightly to the east due to several factors, but I think mostly just due to the natural oscillations it has followed through history.


I do believe that the secondary use of recreation cannot be completely removed from the equation as there is a substantial economic benefit from recreation that does not consume the resource as water parks and golf courses do. Camping, boating and fishing activities raise tax money in these areas without using up the resource.

Nothing in particular. At one point I had heard it included a "water grid" that would be another way of conveying water across the state based on "need". It seemed like a workaround to one city buying water rights from another area and using more than the residents of that area. When I read through the bill, I couldn't find it.

Do you think it will result in new and economical sources of fresh water?

Are there parts of the bill that you know of that would be counterproductive?

If no major negatives or positives jump out at you other than how bogged down in the legal process it will be, that probably answers most of my questions.

I encourage anybody to get involved via public comment opportunities like that. Couple of pieces of advice though would be 1) Make sure you are sending your comments or letters to the right parties who may be required by law to act on them depending on the setting, and 2) Make sure that you comment addressing something that is within the power of the party you are writing to change.

In the case of the Alice and Driscoll desal plants, writing to Corpus Christi Water is pretty pointless because those projects are sponsored by the City of Alice water supply and South Texas Water Authority, respectively and are actually being done to reduce their reliance on water from the City of Corpus Christi. I would encourage people to write to City of Corpus about their two projects that plan to dump their brine directly into the bay, as I think those are much more likely to have negative effects based on what we know right now.

Similarly, during the recent comment periods about for the feasibility study for the proposed Marvin Nichols reservoir performed by the TWDB, there were tons of public comments, but most of them addressed topics that were outside of the stated scope of the report (which was set by the legislature in their request that TWDB perform the report). The report wasn't an endorsement of the project, it was simply a response to the question posed of whether it was feasible to build it and what were the various issues that would need to be addressed. Yet many of the comments were along the lines of "the project shouldn't be built for x, y, and z reasons". Since the report was not addressing whether the project "should be built", the comment was useless and generated no change in the report in response.

Along the same lines, people came to the Region N planning group meetings wanting to advocate for the City of Corpus to not build their desal plants. The Regional Planning groups and TWDB have no regulatory responsibility and can't tell anybody not to build anything, particularly if the project is using an approved strategy from the regional water plan. Comments should be directed at the agencies with the actual ability to regulate the proposed project (such as TCEQ for the brine discharges) and not groups that have no oversight role.

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Nothing in particular. At one point I had heard it included a "water grid" that would be another way of conveying water across the state based on "need". It seemed like a workaround to one city buying water rights from another area and using more than the residents of that area. When I read through the bill, I couldn't find it.

Do you think it will result in new and economical sources of fresh water?

Are there parts of the bill that you know of that would be counterproductive?

If no major negatives or positives jump out at you other than how bogged down in the legal process it will be, that probably answers most of my questions.

---

I will see what I can get for you.

txags92 said:

---

I encourage anybody to get involved via public comment opportunities like that. Couple of pieces of advice though would be 1) Make sure you are sending your comments or letters to the right parties who may be required by law to act on them depending on the setting, and 2) Make sure that you comment addressing something that is within the power of the party you are writing to change.

In the case of the Alice and Driscoll desal plants, writing to Corpus Christi Water is pretty pointless because those projects are sponsored by the City of Alice water supply and South Texas Water Authority, respectively and are actually being done to reduce their reliance on water from the City of Corpus Christi. I would encourage people to write to City of Corpus about their two projects that plan to dump their brine directly into the bay, as I think those are much more likely to have negative effects based on what we know right now.

Similarly, during the recent comment periods about for the feasibility study for the proposed Marvin Nichols reservoir performed by the TWDB, there were tons of public comments, but most of them addressed topics that were outside of the stated scope of the report (which was set by the legislature in their request that TWDB perform the report). The report wasn't an endorsement of the project, it was simply a response to the question posed of whether it was feasible to build it and what were the various issues that would need to be addressed. Yet many of the comments were along the lines of "the project shouldn't be built for x, y, and z reasons". Since the report was not addressing whether the project "should be built", the comment was useless and generated no change in the report in response.

Along the same lines, people came to the Region N planning group meetings wanting to advocate for the City of Corpus to not build their desal plants. The Regional Planning groups and TWDB have no regulatory responsibility and can't tell anybody not to build anything, particularly if the project is using an approved strategy from the regional water plan. Comments should be directed at the agencies with the actual ability to regulate the proposed project (such as TCEQ for the brine discharges) and not groups that have no oversight role.

---

Great advice.

Pls copy and paste on new Public comment thread I started.

schmellba99 said:

---

1990Hullaballoo said:

---

I agree, but at least they could leave enough in it to launch a boat.

It's been several months since anything but a very small boat could launch.

---

You do realize that recreation is wholly a secondary aspect of water supply reservoirs, correct?

---

Maybe third. Primary was flood control.

SGrem said:

---

Need for Written Public Comment - Baffin Bay to Receive Reverse Osmosis Reject Water up to 10 million gallons per day in to Alazan Bay.

Many of your are hearing through social media that there is a plan in development for Baffin Bay to receive the concentrated reverse osmosis (RO) reject water that's going to be coming from a brackish water well in Driscoll Texas. The discharge will be into a tributary creek that will then flow into Alazan Bay and then into Baffin Bay.

The short of it
There is no research or data documenting that discharging a brackish well water to a surface stream that runs into a bay that basically does not ebb and flow with current or otherwise refresh itself (essentially in a system that only concentrates any and all potential pollutants in it).
There is no data for the constituents of the discharge (they don't know what's in it and are downplaying the potential for pollutants saying it's only some dissolved salts (Total Dissolved Solids TDS). They want the least expensive option to discharge the water after the reverse osmosis process.
It's actually supposed to discharge water that is on the fresher side in the range of 10ppt (with also unknown pollutants such as possibly arsenic and more nitrogen which do occur in the aquifer they are pulling from). Alazan and Baffin average between 36 to 45ppt. The ultimate expansion of the plant could result in approximately 10 million gallons per day of water into Baffin. Baffin has adapted over 1000's of years to be a hyper-saline bay not needing freshwater input like our upper coast bays.
Basically they are treating Baffin (and anyone that has fished it and want to fish it in the future) as a lab rat. They are willing to take a risk of changing Baffin (and possibly the Upper Laguna Madre), the lively hood of many guides, the experience of thousands of fisherman, the commercial drum industry, and it's associated restaurants based on poor or non existent science and spin.

Please make a public comment thru this link to the City of Corpus Christi, Tx. The proposed next plant is to be in Driscoll, Tx within Nueces County (that's the tie to CC city council). Corpus Christi may also receive future water from this well. We need the these cities to see that there is risk in loosing tax revenue and real dollars if the discharge to Baffin (and ultimately the ULM) degrades recreational and commercial fishing.

Written Comment link
Public Comment & Input Form

Your argument points could be:
You come many miles away to fish Baffin and the ULM for spotted sea trout and black drum
When you do, you spend money in Nueces County and Corpus Christi Texas for fishing and hunting guides, tackle, equipment, lodging, food, and other related cost such as truck, boat, or trailer repair (if applicable).
If Baffin Bay or the Upper Laguna Madre fishing and hunting is degraded you won't come there and will be forced to go spend your money elsewhere.
In my case, living in Corpus, if something happened to the fishing here... myself and many guides will move and take our money to Port Mansfield and South Padre Island.
Request that the discharge of the RO water is not discharged to tributaries that lead to Baffin Bay. Suggest they should consider other options such as disposing in a well but not discharge to Baffin Bay or it's tributaries.
Don't feel like your comment has to be scientific. There are those that are doing that including myself, but you just need to say that you are a stakeholder as well.


Who should comment?
Anyone that has ever fished Baffin or the ULM
Anyone who might fish Baffin or ULM in the future
Please share this with out of town guest as well that you might take to Baffin in the future. They need to see that Baffin is not a local resources to test, it's a potential economic loss if the experiment doesn't work.
Please consider taking action. There is no wrong action... in the end there is only regret of not taking action.
Other resources:
Harte Research Institute (TAMU)
HRI Article and Statement

CCA's Public Comment (yeah I know CCA does questionable stuff but they're are helping here).
CCA Public Statement



Sample Starter Statement you can make (I'm not providing a blanket letter to copy and paste because as a former person in that field I can tell you that duplicate copies are not valued as highly as individual personal experiences as comments).
---------
Dear Corpus Christ City Council Member.

I strongly oppose the discharge of any reverse osmosis reject water to any tributary of Baffin Bay. Baffin Bay is a unique water body in Texas that brings millions of dollars of revenue to your city and Nueces county thru recreational and commercial fishing and hunting.

Take it from there.... use some of the above argument points and state your case or add your own viewpoint.

In the end, if the bay gets degraded by the discharge, you, your guest, and your financial inputs to the area and surrounding area will go elsewhere.

Please take a few minutes and do this for the trout fishing community.

Copy and paste and credited to Tobin Strickland.

---

Thanks for sharing that. I paraphrased this and sent to all of my council members.!

Secolobo said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

1990Hullaballoo said:

---

I agree, but at least they could leave enough in it to launch a boat.

It's been several months since anything but a very small boat could launch.

---

You do realize that recreation is wholly a secondary aspect of water supply reservoirs, correct?

---

Maybe third. Primary was flood control.

---

Nope, not for water supply reservoirs. The primary function of those is to hold water so that water is always available for domestic water supply. They operate in narrow bands to ensure that water is constant, which is why lakes like Conroe or Houston can't just empty out when there is a threat of rain.

Flood control reservoirs are different, they are generally empty and designed to control floods during high water events. Barker Reservoir on the west side of Houston is an example of a flood control reservior.

Recreation on either is second, third, whatever in terms of priority.

txags92 said:

---

docb said:

---

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLljXd8Jvcr/?igsh=MWRibThqcTdpZzZ3dQ==
I'm sorry but I just don't trust these people

---

There is a huge assumption involved in that objection, which is the assumption that the hypersalinity of the bay we measure today has been that way forever and has not been induced by human activities reducing the flows to bay from upstream. I don't think anybody has the data to prove that either direction. If they have, I haven't found it online.

---

Hell, just look at Google Earth and go to the historical imagery of the area. On my version, 1984 is the oldest that has sat images and it is a completely different landscape between then and now. Wholesale changes in the landscape surrounding the bay, all of which has significant impacts on the bay itself. Anybody that thinks the significant increase in ag and the surface modifications and changes on the north side of the bay on the King don't have an effect is willfully ignorant.

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

Nothing in particular. At one point I had heard it included a "water grid" that would be another way of conveying water across the state based on "need". It seemed like a workaround to one city buying water rights from another area and using more than the residents of that area. When I read through the bill, I couldn't find it.

Do you think it will result in new and economical sources of fresh water?

Are there parts of the bill that you know of that would be counterproductive?

If no major negatives or positives jump out at you other than how bogged down in the legal process it will be, that probably answers most of my questions.

---

I think the answers can be boiled down to no, yes, and not really. Supposedly, in the initial drafting of the bill, Sen Perry was considering how to do some sort of statewide conveyance capability for sharing water from water rich areas to water poor areas, but that never made it into the drafts that came up for consideration. There was a smaller allocation set aside for funding potential longer distance conveyance projects, but nothing like a state water grid or other large scale conveyance system.

The $20 B fund will absolutely help providers bring new projects forward that would not have been possible with the previous funding mechanisms. There shouldn't be anything particularly grueling about the process for getting them funded as long as they are working on strategies included in the water plan for their region.

No really counterproductive parts in the bill, but evaluation of what is in some of the riders and what is desired is still underway.

Yea ask crooked crooked Corpus all about the pipeline from Texana. Big time brother in law deal right there.

Water in STX is a serious, serious issue. SA and Corpus have been mentioned, but a major elephant in the room is the RGV.

If one adds the population of the Mexican side and the US side there are 300K more people from Rio Grande City to Matamoros than there are in San Antonio, and both sides continue growing in a big way.

And then you have the Ag industry on both sides as well.

DeSal plants not right on an open ocean are a risky proposition. The reality is that deep STX is basically a mild desert that doesn't get the amount of rain it needs to support all the people and activities that go on in the area.