Outdoors
Sponsored by

STx desalination plant controversy

14,576 Views | 232 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by schmellba99
JeremiahJohnson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bradley.Kohr.II • 6:56p, 9/3/25
AG
How are they going to plumb all that raw water from your water capture back to the drinking water plant? Only return line is sewage. You aren't drinking that. Different plant. You'd have to plumb lines from every home to the potable water plant.

It could work on an individual basis if you had a in home treatment system or for grey water for watering the yard. Not feasible for large scale.

Desal is a lot cheaper and less invasive.

I treat water for a living.
Reply Quote
7
2 edits
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JeremiahJohnson • 7:30p, 9/3/25
AG
JeremiahJohnson said:
How are they going to plumb all that raw water from your water capture back to the drinking water plant? Only return line is sewage. You aren't drinking that. Different plant. You'd have to plumb lines from every home to the potable water plant.

It could work on an individual basis if you had a in home treatment system or for grey water for watering the yard. Not feasible for large scale.

Desal is a lot cheaper and less invasive.

I treat water for a living.


They might be drinking it soon in Corpus. One of the alternatives they plan to examine instead of the desal plant is wastewater reuse.

Giving up on it after putting $47M into it is a very Corpus thing to do though. They are eventually going to have to embrace desal of some variety. They can do it now or wait and spend even more to do it 5-10 years from now.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
JeremiahJohnson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:40p, 9/3/25
AG
That will be chemical based treatment. Nothing wrong with that, but compared to using ultra filtrations in a desal plant you have trade offs. Probably spend just as much or more on water reuse. Not sure though I havent looked at the numbers.
Reply Quote
2
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JeremiahJohnson • 7:51p, 9/3/25
AG
JeremiahJohnson said:
That will be chemical based treatment. Nothing wrong with that, but compared to using ultra filtrations in a desal plant you have trade offs. Probably spend just as much or more on water reuse. Not sure though I havent looked at the numbers.


Water reuse for things like irrigation and cooling water doesn't require as much treatment as using it for process or potable purposes. The main reason not to combine rainwater capture with regular sewer is what do you do when your rainfall exceeds your system capacity. You are stuck dumping raw sewage that you cant treat/store like the bad old days of combined storm and sanitary systems.
Reply Quote
4
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SGrem • 8:27p, 9/3/25
AG
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

I agree. The state will likely need to step in with this since the City of Corpus Christi has know about this issue for years and proven inept at a solution.
Reply Quote
SGrem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30p, 9/3/25
Rainwater runs to the reservoirs.....which are used for freshwater. Interrupt that and the lake runs dry.....
Reply Quote
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SGrem • 8:37p, 9/3/25
AG
SGrem said:
Rainwater runs to the reservoirs.....which are used for freshwater. Interrupt that and the lake runs dry.....

Those lakes pretty much already have gone dry. Choke Canyon 11.8% full as of today.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
fullback44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 8:50p, 9/3/25
AG
txags92 said:
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

So $2+B would be ok, when they just balked at $1.2B? Unlikely. Running multiple large diameter pipelines across the bay and through barrier islands is not without its own set of ecological concerns.


Eventually it's not gonna matter, figure it out, the Middle East has be using desalted water for years. Put the plant closer to the ocean, desalt, then run finished water to the city- I don't know the answer but it will get done when it's absolutely needed. It's probably a little early and not absolutely needed yet. Look for other methods of funding, federal grants, etc. there are plenty engineers to figure this all out. I would think it gonna take some time to get it all figured out. They will eventually find the money to get it done
Reply Quote
1
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fullback44 • 9:01p, 9/3/25
AG
fullback44 said:
txags92 said:
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

So $2+B would be ok, when they just balked at $1.2B? Unlikely. Running multiple large diameter pipelines across the bay and through barrier islands is not without its own set of ecological concerns.


Eventually it's not gonna matter, figure it out, the Middle East has be using desalted water for years. Put the plant closer to the ocean, desalt, then run finished water to the city- I don't know the answer but it will get done when it's absolutely needed. It's probably a little early and not absolutely needed yet. Look for other methods of funding, federal grants, etc. there are plenty engineers to figure this all out. I would think it gonna take some time to get it all figured out. They will eventually find the money to get it done

It was needed in 2023. It was needed now. It was needed at the end of 2028 when it was supposed to come online. Starting over with a different plant project means starting the design and permitting process all over again and will delay the operational date by several years beyond that. They have firm commitments for providing more water to new facilities that come into force over the next couple of years. Not supplying that water will cost the city millions in penalties. Supplying it will mean depriving some other use.

As far as where to put the plant, put the plant near where the users are. Running the brine effluent offshore means leaks just lose a little brine into salt water. Running clean potable water from the coast to the city means losing clean water to leaks, not to mention putting it at extreme risk from hurricanes.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fullback44 • 9:29p, 9/3/25
AG
fullback44 said:
txags92 said:
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

So $2+B would be ok, when they just balked at $1.2B? Unlikely. Running multiple large diameter pipelines across the bay and through barrier islands is not without its own set of ecological concerns.


Eventually it's not gonna matter, figure it out, the Middle East has be using desalted water for years. Put the plant closer to the ocean, desalt, then run finished water to the city- I don't know the answer but it will get done when it's absolutely needed. It's probably a little early and not absolutely needed yet. Look for other methods of funding, federal grants, etc. there are plenty engineers to figure this all out. I would think it gonna take some time to get it all figured out. They will eventually find the money to get it done

My question is why aren't the industries that are using 60-80% of the water helping out with funding this. 2 billion spread across those companies is not that much money. Why in the hell are the people of Corpus Christi along with some state funding supposed to foot this bill?
Reply Quote
2
JeremiahJohnson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:42p, 9/3/25
AG
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JeremiahJohnson • 9:52p, 9/3/25
AG
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.
Reply Quote
1 edit
JeremiahJohnson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:11p, 9/3/25
AG
There is no perfect answer.
Reply Quote
11
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 10:14p, 9/3/25
AG
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.

Corpus Christi Water says it is 58%. The decision on where and how to select a site for a plant always takes into account incentives from the local municipalities (tax abatements, cheaper water, etc.). You can force them to pay more for water supplies, but they are going to expect incentives somewhere else to offset it. Having them pay for the water long term (to the tune of millions of dollars per year) is more cost effective than asking them to pay some of the initial construction and having to let them pay cheaper water rates into perpetuity instead. Something else to think about is if the plants start installing their own desal plants, you lose the power of the ballot box to influence where they discharge their brine.
Reply Quote
1
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 10:20p, 9/3/25
AG
They would not be able to just dump it in public water because they own the desal unit.
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 10:29p, 9/3/25
AG
docb said:
They would not be able to just dump it in public water because they own the desal unit.

The inner harbor project they already shut down had all of the necessary TCEQ, USACE, etc. permits. Getting permits to discharge the brine to surface water is not hard. It has been politicians susceptible to the ballot box that have shut down the plant discharges or the plants themselves for the Seven Seas and Inner Harbor plants, not discharge permitting concerns.
Reply Quote
1
fullback44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 10:58p, 9/3/25
AG
I suspect that will eventually happen in the form of their water bills

The way I see it, there is very few if any ways to get more water, it's gonna have to come from the ocean- they better figure it out - maybe not today, next year or 5 years but it's coming. Things need to get severe enough that these decision makers will be forced to make it happen.
Reply Quote
1
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fullback44 • 11:22p, 9/3/25
AG
fullback44 said:
I suspect that will eventually happen in the form of their water bills

The way I see it, there is very few if any ways to get more water, it's gonna have to come from the ocean- they better figure it out - maybe not today, next year or 5 years but it's coming. Things need to get severe enough that these decision makers will be forced to make it happen.

They can also do brackish GW desal too. It has some advantages because the effluent brine salinity is less problematic for discharge than from seawater desal. But the quantity you can get is not unlimited like it s with seawater.
Reply Quote
2
CactusThomas
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 11:33p, 9/3/25
AG
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.


This is what is happening behind the scenes in Ingleside.

When the municipalities lose their biggest, most reliable customers, what happens to the residents? Their $80 water bills don't cover much maintenance on extensive infrastructure.
Reply Quote
aggie59
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:44a, 9/4/25
AG
Why is it so many discussions on these forums Forums remind of Rudyard Kiplings "THE SEVEN BLIND MEN & THE ELEPHANT"
Reply Quote
2
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 10:37a, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
fullback44 said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
Desal plants are going to be a necessity if people keep moving to San Antonio and Austin. There isn't enough water there.

This is your answer folks, it doesn't matter what is all discussed on this board, who is right or who is wrong, or who is just being a pain in the arse, there are water needs in the big cities that will need to come from the oceans and or saltwater bay systems.

Everyone needs to find a happy medium on where to discharge the concentrated higher salinity water, thats what is up for debate.

Personally, I would pump it back into the ocean if that makes people happier, but if they do, expect your water bill to be a little higher every month because someone has to pay for installing and then running those extra pumps to get that water back out into the ocean.

But there is no way around it, this desalted water will be needed ... people need to find a way to meet in the middle and stop holding up these types of projects. These cities need find a better mediator that can help bring the two sides together and get things done.. Rome wasnt built overnight, but it also didnt take 1000 years to build it..

Ocean is the best route for sure. Dumping it into a shallow bay is not the answer.

Tell me why.

Use numbers & hard data, not just emotional "I think it's bad!" arguments.

Because there are multiple real world examples that prove out the fact that discharging brine into a bay system, especially one like Corpus Christi bay that has high inflows and outflows, makes exactly zero difference on aquatic life or water quality.
Reply Quote
7
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 10:46a, 9/4/25
AG
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
fullback44 said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
Desal plants are going to be a necessity if people keep moving to San Antonio and Austin. There isn't enough water there.

This is your answer folks, it doesn't matter what is all discussed on this board, who is right or who is wrong, or who is just being a pain in the arse, there are water needs in the big cities that will need to come from the oceans and or saltwater bay systems.

Everyone needs to find a happy medium on where to discharge the concentrated higher salinity water, thats what is up for debate.

Personally, I would pump it back into the ocean if that makes people happier, but if they do, expect your water bill to be a little higher every month because someone has to pay for installing and then running those extra pumps to get that water back out into the ocean.

But there is no way around it, this desalted water will be needed ... people need to find a way to meet in the middle and stop holding up these types of projects. These cities need find a better mediator that can help bring the two sides together and get things done.. Rome wasnt built overnight, but it also didnt take 1000 years to build it..

Ocean is the best route for sure. Dumping it into a shallow bay is not the answer.

Tell me why.

Use numbers & hard data, not just emotional "I think it's bad!" arguments.

Because there are multiple real world examples that prove out the fact that discharging brine into a bay system, especially one like Corpus Christi bay that has high inflows and outflows, makes exactly zero difference on aquatic life or water quality.

Well for starters I am talking about the effluent into Baffin Bay, which does not have high inflows and outflows as there is not much tidal movement and it is a long way from a cut into the Gulf. Don't need numbers and data to know that if it is not dumped into the bay than it will not harm the bay. And common sense says that the ocean is a much, much bigger area to dilute this than a shallow bay. If Corpus wants to dump that stuff into their own bay system as a test run than have at it. I wouldn't do it, but apparently they think it will improve the bay.
Reply Quote
1
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SGrem • 10:47a, 9/4/25
AG
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

No, it absolutely does not.

There is a reason that brackish water acquifers are far, far, far preferred over pure saline water from the sea. And pretending that there aren't a billion environmental impact studies, factors, hurdles, etc. that have to be dealt with because it's "out in the ocean" is just dumb. There are probably more issues with "just pipe it out in the sea" than using brackish source water and discharging brine into the bay.

The cost to "just pipe it too and from the sea" are enormous as well. The intake and discharge portion of the project would probably run over $100mm alone added to the cost of the project and add at least 3 years to the overall schedule due to environmental hurdles that would need to be overcome.

There is also the maintenance aspect - intake pipes and discharge pipes require maintenance, because any type of salt water environment is absolute hell on equipment. Not to mention things like barnacle removal, etc. that is inherent with anything in a salt water environment. It isn't cheap to send divers down offshore, and that would be at least a bi-yearly job, if not quarterly.

So.....pretty much exactly the opposite of your claim. Far, far more cost, definitely add several years onto the project schedule and higher annual maintenance costs. That's just for the intake and discharge lines. The cost to treat seawater over brackish is in the tune of about 4x because you go through filters far more frequently and the water quality of saline/seawater is much more volatile. It costs more to treat across the board.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CactusThomas • 10:49a, 9/4/25
AG
CactusThomas said:
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.


This is what is happening behind the scenes in Ingleside.

When the municipalities lose their biggest, most reliable customers, what happens to the residents? Their $80 water bills don't cover much maintenance on extensive infrastructure.

This is a very real problem for Corpus now that they have stopped the inner harbor plant from happening. There are already other entities planning their own desal plants (seawater and brackish GW) that Corpus was already upset about because those entities currently get their water from Corpus. If this pushes more of their customers to seek out alternate sources, it will be a big hit to their finances and push more of the cost for any other projects onto their residential customers.
Reply Quote
2
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fullback44 • 10:52a, 9/4/25
AG
fullback44 said:
txags92 said:
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

So $2+B would be ok, when they just balked at $1.2B? Unlikely. Running multiple large diameter pipelines across the bay and through barrier islands is not without its own set of ecological concerns.


Eventually it's not gonna matter, figure it out, the Middle East has be using desalted water for years. Put the plant closer to the ocean, desalt, then run finished water to the city- I don't know the answer but it will get done when it's absolutely needed. It's probably a little early and not absolutely needed yet. Look for other methods of funding, federal grants, etc. there are plenty engineers to figure this all out. I would think it gonna take some time to get it all figured out. They will eventually find the money to get it done

Where - and be precise - would you put it "closer to the ocean"?

Barrier islands are out, especially barrier islands that are national wildlife refuges like Mustang Island is. The proposed plant is on the damn bay, there isn't anywhere that is "closer to the ocean" that is even remotely viable in that area.
Reply Quote
1
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 10:57a, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
fullback44 said:
txags92 said:
SGrem said:
Intake - offshore
Discharge - offshore

And the project gets approved yesterday with zero pushback. They start providing water many YEARS sooner....

Or they just shuffle the millions under different shells for many years. Ends up similar cost with huge delay.

So $2+B would be ok, when they just balked at $1.2B? Unlikely. Running multiple large diameter pipelines across the bay and through barrier islands is not without its own set of ecological concerns.


Eventually it's not gonna matter, figure it out, the Middle East has be using desalted water for years. Put the plant closer to the ocean, desalt, then run finished water to the city- I don't know the answer but it will get done when it's absolutely needed. It's probably a little early and not absolutely needed yet. Look for other methods of funding, federal grants, etc. there are plenty engineers to figure this all out. I would think it gonna take some time to get it all figured out. They will eventually find the money to get it done

My question is why aren't the industries that are using 60-80% of the water helping out with funding this. 2 billion spread across those companies is not that much money. Why in the hell are the people of Corpus Christi along with some state funding supposed to foot this bill?

They are. They pay for the water, and they pay on average a whole lot more per gallon than residential or agricultural users do.

Everybody is paying for it through their monthly water bills. Also, the state isn't "funding" it - the state is providing low interest loans that are paid back over a set period of time. The money isn't free.
Reply Quote
8
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 11:03a, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.

So.....you just want to shift the water useage from one place to another?

That does absolutely nothing, other than sort of maybe somewhere make somebody "feel" better. The water is still being used regardless of the source of treatment.

Oh, and without those industries paying for the water they use, water bills go up across the board for residential, business and ag use. Beyond that, when you start having multiple purveyors in a small area, fights ensue over water rights. Which costs everybody money.

This "industry is evil!" mantra is just not based in any semblance of logic. It's a small minded attempt at some evil scapegoat. I haven't checked out the lay of the land on the CC Ship Channel in a while, but my memory is that there isn't a whole lot of available land for these magic water treatment facilities to be constructed either.
Reply Quote
2
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 11:08a, 9/4/25
AG
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.

So.....you just want to shift the water useage from one place to another?

That does absolutely nothing, other than sort of maybe somewhere make somebody "feel" better. The water is still being used regardless of the source of treatment.

Oh, and without those industries paying for the water they use, water bills go up across the board for residential, business and ag use. Beyond that, when you start having multiple purveyors in a small area, fights ensue over water rights. Which costs everybody money.

This "industry is evil!" mantra is just not based in any semblance of logic. It's a small minded attempt at some evil scapegoat. I haven't checked out the lay of the land on the CC Ship Channel in a while, but my memory is that there isn't a whole lot of available land for these magic water treatment facilities to be constructed either.

Maybe you should be in charge of this water problem since you seem to know everything
Reply Quote
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 11:16a, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
fullback44 said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
Desal plants are going to be a necessity if people keep moving to San Antonio and Austin. There isn't enough water there.

This is your answer folks, it doesn't matter what is all discussed on this board, who is right or who is wrong, or who is just being a pain in the arse, there are water needs in the big cities that will need to come from the oceans and or saltwater bay systems.

Everyone needs to find a happy medium on where to discharge the concentrated higher salinity water, thats what is up for debate.

Personally, I would pump it back into the ocean if that makes people happier, but if they do, expect your water bill to be a little higher every month because someone has to pay for installing and then running those extra pumps to get that water back out into the ocean.

But there is no way around it, this desalted water will be needed ... people need to find a way to meet in the middle and stop holding up these types of projects. These cities need find a better mediator that can help bring the two sides together and get things done.. Rome wasnt built overnight, but it also didnt take 1000 years to build it..

Ocean is the best route for sure. Dumping it into a shallow bay is not the answer.

Tell me why.

Use numbers & hard data, not just emotional "I think it's bad!" arguments.

Because there are multiple real world examples that prove out the fact that discharging brine into a bay system, especially one like Corpus Christi bay that has high inflows and outflows, makes exactly zero difference on aquatic life or water quality.

Well for starters I am talking about the effluent into Baffin Bay, which does not have high inflows and outflows as there is not much tidal movement and it is a long way from a cut into the Gulf. Don't need numbers and data to know that if it is not dumped into the bay than it will not harm the bay. And common sense says that the ocean is a much, much bigger area to dilute this than a shallow bay. If Corpus wants to dump that stuff into their own bay system as a test run than have at it. I wouldn't do it, but apparently they think it will improve the bay.

Oh, so you are back to the Baffin argument now? Guess you can't answer for the Corpus discussion that this thread has turned into.

Ok - so back to the Baffin argument.

Again - use hard numbers and data. Also account for the fact that over the decades water inflow to Baffin has been severely modified and restricted via the massive amount of agriculture around the bay and urban development upstream of the few streams that do flow into the bay. Additionally, take into account the rather routine issue with fertilizer runoff into the bay that affects marine life and water quality. Furthermore, account for the natural fluctuations of the bay that go from near 0ppm salinity up to over 100ppm in drought. After some flood events in 2015 the bay salinity was down to under 16ppm.

I would love to see hard data showing that this would somehow kill everything in the bay and turn it into Texas's version of the Dead Sea. If that's the case, I'd be right along side you arguing that this is not good at all. But so far the only argument has been "I don't like it!" and "the data they showed just has to be suspect because reasons!". Emotional arguments are just that - emotional. They are not born in facts. Facts tell the truth one way or another. Show us facts.
Reply Quote
4
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 11:19a, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
They pay for the water. I'm sure you could ask them to pay for it but then they wouldn't be paying much for the water. So there is a break even point.

They could also make their own desal plant and not let the city use it.

Using ultra filtration instead of RO there is minimal to no reject. Where RO will have 25% brine reject. With ultrafiltration you have to replace the filters but you aren't discharging into the bay.

It's not a terrible idea. A lot of petrochemical plants have their own power generation so maybe they should think about their own water supply. I mean they are using up to 80% of the existing water usage…..and they have the funds.

So.....you just want to shift the water useage from one place to another?

That does absolutely nothing, other than sort of maybe somewhere make somebody "feel" better. The water is still being used regardless of the source of treatment.

Oh, and without those industries paying for the water they use, water bills go up across the board for residential, business and ag use. Beyond that, when you start having multiple purveyors in a small area, fights ensue over water rights. Which costs everybody money.

This "industry is evil!" mantra is just not based in any semblance of logic. It's a small minded attempt at some evil scapegoat. I haven't checked out the lay of the land on the CC Ship Channel in a while, but my memory is that there isn't a whole lot of available land for these magic water treatment facilities to be constructed either.

Maybe you should be in charge of this water problem since you seem to know everything

I don't claim to know everything. I've just been in the water business for 25 years now, so I do know a little bit here and there. A lot more than I knew 25 years ago.

Sorry you don't like when your thoughts or arguments are fleshed out to be either small minded or flat out incorrect. It happens to every one of us on here in one form or another.
Reply Quote
4
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 11:25a, 9/4/25
AG
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
schmellba99 said:
docb said:
fullback44 said:
JeremiahJohnson said:
Desal plants are going to be a necessity if people keep moving to San Antonio and Austin. There isn't enough water there.

This is your answer folks, it doesn't matter what is all discussed on this board, who is right or who is wrong, or who is just being a pain in the arse, there are water needs in the big cities that will need to come from the oceans and or saltwater bay systems.

Everyone needs to find a happy medium on where to discharge the concentrated higher salinity water, thats what is up for debate.

Personally, I would pump it back into the ocean if that makes people happier, but if they do, expect your water bill to be a little higher every month because someone has to pay for installing and then running those extra pumps to get that water back out into the ocean.

But there is no way around it, this desalted water will be needed ... people need to find a way to meet in the middle and stop holding up these types of projects. These cities need find a better mediator that can help bring the two sides together and get things done.. Rome wasnt built overnight, but it also didnt take 1000 years to build it..

Ocean is the best route for sure. Dumping it into a shallow bay is not the answer.

Tell me why.

Use numbers & hard data, not just emotional "I think it's bad!" arguments.

Because there are multiple real world examples that prove out the fact that discharging brine into a bay system, especially one like Corpus Christi bay that has high inflows and outflows, makes exactly zero difference on aquatic life or water quality.

Well for starters I am talking about the effluent into Baffin Bay, which does not have high inflows and outflows as there is not much tidal movement and it is a long way from a cut into the Gulf. Don't need numbers and data to know that if it is not dumped into the bay than it will not harm the bay. And common sense says that the ocean is a much, much bigger area to dilute this than a shallow bay. If Corpus wants to dump that stuff into their own bay system as a test run than have at it. I wouldn't do it, but apparently they think it will improve the bay.

Oh, so you are back to the Baffin argument now? Guess you can't answer for the Corpus discussion that this thread has turned into.

Ok - so back to the Baffin argument.

Again - use hard numbers and data. Also account for the fact that over the decades water inflow to Baffin has been severely modified and restricted via the massive amount of agriculture around the bay and urban development upstream of the few streams that do flow into the bay. Additionally, take into account the rather routine issue with fertilizer runoff into the bay that affects marine life and water quality. Furthermore, account for the natural fluctuations of the bay that go from near 0ppm salinity up to over 100ppm in drought. After some flood events in 2015 the bay salinity was down to under 16ppm.

I would love to see hard data showing that this would somehow kill everything in the bay and turn it into Texas's version of the Dead Sea. If that's the case, I'd be right along side you arguing that this is not good at all. But so far the only argument has been "I don't like it!" and "the data they showed just has to be suspect because reasons!". Emotional arguments are just that - emotional. They are not born in facts. Facts tell the truth one way or another. Show us facts.

Well you are welcome to go read through the entire thread that my argument has always been with Baffin Bay. But you just like to argue with most everyone so I am not surprised you didn't see that. I'm not wasting my time to give you data on this. I am a surgeon, not a hydrologist. I haven't seen any data the other way to support this either. At the end of the day I do not live down there so it's not going to affect me one way or another. I wish them luck on getting their water issues resolved.
Reply Quote
1
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 1:09p, 9/4/25
AG
I have been on the thread from the beginning. You kinda bowed out for a while, then popped up when the subject turned to the desal in Corpus and made several comments without context that you were referencing Baffin the entire time, so it's pretty natural to make an assumption since you didn't clarify that you were involved in the Corpus discussion.

Maybe next time be a little clearer and much of the confusion can be avoided.
Reply Quote
1
fullback44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 1:12p, 9/4/25
AG
Sir, I dont know and dont really care where they put it, Im not here to argue about this, as I said above, hire the right engineering companies that understand the entire picture and let them figure it out. thats how all this works anyways... hell for all I know they may use desalination ships which are being looked at around the world. All I am saying is the ocean and or bay systems is where the water will need to come from, how they make that work is up to the engineers and decision makers.
Reply Quote
3
docb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schmellba99 • 1:42p, 9/4/25
AG
schmellba99 said:
I have been on the thread from the beginning. You kinda bowed out for a while, then popped up when the subject turned to the desal in Corpus and made several comments without context that you were referencing Baffin the entire time, so it's pretty natural to make an assumption since you didn't clarify that you were involved in the Corpus discussion.


Maybe next time be a little clearer and much of the confusion can be avoided.

Well that is what the original post is about so I figured that was clear enough
Reply Quote
2
Aggie_Boomin 21
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to docb • 6:01p, 9/4/25
AG
docb said:
I am a surgeon, not a hydrologist. I haven't seen any data the other way to support this either.

When my appendix got infected I never sought out or saw data that supported having it removed or left in there. Many more knowledgeable in the area than I insisted it was good for me to have it removed, and that the data existed, but I wasn't receptive to that either. I ultimately decided on inaction and it worked out fine. I was guided by the idea that I value my organs and didn't want to be down one.

/s
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.