What I thought, then I read the other article and it said that the effluent might be less saline than the current bay, not sure that's good either? But I don't know much about how these effect the bay either way. What I don't trust is STx politicians.

Reel Aggies said:

---

What I thought, then I read the other article and it said that the effluent might be less saline than the current bay, not sure that's good either? But I don't know much about how these effect the bay either way. What I don't trust is STx politicians.

---

Agreed. Politicians make decisions based on money (business interests, state coffers, personal donations), not on the environment. On the flip side, some environmental groups can wildly overstate a position. The truth is out there somewhere.

Baffin fluctuates from 0ppt to as high as 100ppt in salinity, but usually hovers around 40-45ppt (typical ocean water is 30-35ppt).

Aside from the natural fluctuations that already occur, the amount of discharge is going to be a drop in the bucket. 3mgd sounds like a lot of water, but it really isn't and compared to the volume of Baffin and Laguna Madre it is insignificant.

Options:
(1) do nothing and corpus, one of Texas' most important industrial/refining/ports runs out of water and all that shuts down
(2) maybe the water gets a little saltier (but probably immeasurably so) and people have to pay taxes to avoid "1"

schmellba99 said:

---

Baffin fluctuates from 0ppt to as high as 100ppt in salinity, but usually hovers around 40-45ppt (typical ocean water is 30-35ppt).

Aside from the natural fluctuations that already occur, the amount of discharge is going to be a drop in the bucket. 3mgd sounds like a lot of water, but it really isn't and compared to the volume of Baffin and Laguna Madre it is insignificant.

---

The 3 million gallon figure is the volume of fresh water produced not the brine discharge volume, but the missing information on this project is the salinity of the brackish aquifer used as the supply water and the salinity of the brine discharge. The salinity and composition of the waste brine water will determine the ecological impact on Baffin.

And thats the problem...... there is no data! They have no date or effects study to show what it would do.

And the contracts between the water authority and the 7 Seas DS plant were signed in super secret a year ago. They informed no one. The local govt is upset. The local mayors are upset. Everything has been very back door under handed so I'm not sure what they expected to happen when everyone found out their plans. If they had been more transparent with some data to share from their current operations dumping into nearby creeks etc The whole thing is purdy stinky to risk such a unique bay system.

rab79 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Baffin fluctuates from 0ppt to as high as 100ppt in salinity, but usually hovers around 40-45ppt (typical ocean water is 30-35ppt).

Aside from the natural fluctuations that already occur, the amount of discharge is going to be a drop in the bucket. 3mgd sounds like a lot of water, but it really isn't and compared to the volume of Baffin and Laguna Madre it is insignificant.

---

The 3 million gallon figure is the volume of fresh water produced not the brine discharge volume, but the missing information on this project is the salinity of the brackish aquifer used as the supply water and the salinity of the brine discharge. The salinity and composition of the waste brine water will determine the ecological impact on Baffin.

---

It's roughly a 1:1 (maybe 1:1.5) ratio of brine to fresh water.

And by definition brackish water is up to 30ppt salinity, above that and it becomes saline. The coastal brackish water aquifers generally range from about 3ppt to around 10ppt, with some very small known areas that go up to close to the 30ppt number, but they are isolated regions and relatively small in geographical area.

At most you'll have in the range of 4.5mgd of brine injected into the bay if it is a full 1:1.5 ratio, but the goal is usually to get it in the 1:1 range for cost purposes.

It will be the equivalent of maybe a teaspoon of water into an Olympic swimming pool in terms of discharge.

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

We can talk #put and surface area and gallons forever. That is not the issue.

What is the immediate effect on the estuary of the dump site? They don't have the data. They have been doing this in other nearby creeks why not share the data?

Not to mention pulling from this bring underground aquifers creates a void which gets filled from a good clear clean underground aquifer. They do communicate between them and the full pressure keeps em separated. If they are going to pull brine just to have it empty clean then what is the point.

If they piped it offshore absolutely NO ONE would have any issue. Noone. Period. Pipe it and go forward. Then charge every one a Lil more on their bill. But it is about the money not the estuary.

Again they did all this secretly and sneakily. Now that move is blowing up in their face.

Share data of the effects so people can understand. Throwing out guesses of ratios is more smoke and mirrors and BS weak tea.

Wars will be fought over water. The area needs it badly. So make it a good thing. Pipe offshore.

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

The average depth of the ULM is 3 feet. Can't imagine that Baffin's average is 8 feet.

TarponChaser said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

---

Ok so I did a little more math. They claim they are going to take ~3000 mg/L TDS water and produce 3 MGD of ~500 mg/L TDS fresh water. If they are discharging 1.5 MGD of effluent that would presumably be around 5,000 mg/L TDS.

According to what I can find online, the average TDS content of Petranila Creek is about 200 mg/L upstream of Driscoll and upwards of 15,000 mg/L downstream of Driscoll, and Baffin Bay averages around 40,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is typically around 35,000 mg/L).

So if all of that math is close to correct, this discharge should be decreasing the salinity of the creek and bay marginally, not increasing it. Given that Baffin Bay often gets too saline at times, I am not seeing that as a big negative.

txags92 said:

---

SGrem said:

---

We can talk #put and surface area and gallons forever. That is not the issue.

What is the immediate effect on the estuary of the dump site? They don't have the data. They have been doing this in other nearby creeks why not share the data?

Not to mention pulling from this bring underground aquifers creates a void which gets filled from a good clear clean underground aquifer. They do communicate between them and the full pressure keeps em separated. If they are going to pull brine just to have it empty clean then what is the point.

If they piped it offshore absolutely NO ONE would have any issue. Noone. Period. Pipe it and go forward. Then charge every one a Lil more on their bill. But it is about the money not the estuary.

Again they did all this secretly and sneakily. Now that move is blowing up in their face.

Share data of the effects so people can understand. Throwing out guesses of ratios is more smoke and mirrors and BS weak tea.

Wars will be fought over water. The area needs it badly. So make it a good thing. Pipe offshore.

---

At the depths they are talking about pulling from (Alice plant is pulling from 2,000 feet), I doubt they are going to have much of an effect on the shallower "clean" groundwater aquifers. Recharge for whatever they pull out is more like to come from seaward areas of the aquifer, not overlying units. They will likely cause some localized subsidence though.

And you should be able to look up the TPDES permit reporting from their Alice plant if it is already operational to see what they are discharging. That should be available on the TCEQ website.

ETA: I just tried to look it up on the TCEQ site and it looks like they got their TPDES permit in July 2023, but have not reported any monitoring data from 2023 or 2024. I looked up some news articles and it looks like the Alice plant has just started operation with 1 well in the last few weeks and are expecting to bring a second well online in by December, so the first data on the EPA site will likely be available after Dec 31, 2025. The parameters sound similar to the Kleberg County plant, with anticipated 3 MGD fresh water output and their TPDES permit (WQ0005401000/ EPA ID TX0143413) is good up to 1.225 MGD effluent.

---

I doubt....
Not likely....

These are phrases we don't risk unique ecosystems with.

They have another plant operating similarly. If they want support they should be releasing data and info and studies from plants already in operstion.

SGrem said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SGrem said:

---

We can talk #put and surface area and gallons forever. That is not the issue.

What is the immediate effect on the estuary of the dump site? They don't have the data. They have been doing this in other nearby creeks why not share the data?

Not to mention pulling from this bring underground aquifers creates a void which gets filled from a good clear clean underground aquifer. They do communicate between them and the full pressure keeps em separated. If they are going to pull brine just to have it empty clean then what is the point.

If they piped it offshore absolutely NO ONE would have any issue. Noone. Period. Pipe it and go forward. Then charge every one a Lil more on their bill. But it is about the money not the estuary.

Again they did all this secretly and sneakily. Now that move is blowing up in their face.

Share data of the effects so people can understand. Throwing out guesses of ratios is more smoke and mirrors and BS weak tea.

Wars will be fought over water. The area needs it badly. So make it a good thing. Pipe offshore.

---

At the depths they are talking about pulling from (Alice plant is pulling from 2,000 feet), I doubt they are going to have much of an effect on the shallower "clean" groundwater aquifers. Recharge for whatever they pull out is more like to come from seaward areas of the aquifer, not overlying units. They will likely cause some localized subsidence though.

And you should be able to look up the TPDES permit reporting from their Alice plant if it is already operational to see what they are discharging. That should be available on the TCEQ website.

ETA: I just tried to look it up on the TCEQ site and it looks like they got their TPDES permit in July 2023, but have not reported any monitoring data from 2023 or 2024. I looked up some news articles and it looks like the Alice plant has just started operation with 1 well in the last few weeks and are expecting to bring a second well online in by December, so the first data on the EPA site will likely be available after Dec 31, 2025. The parameters sound similar to the Kleberg County plant, with anticipated 3 MGD fresh water output and their TPDES permit (WQ0005401000/ EPA ID TX0143413) is good up to 1.225 MGD effluent.

---

I doubt....
Not likely....

These are phrases we don't risk unique ecosystems with.

They have another plant operating similarly. If they want support they should be releasing data and info and studies from plants already in operstion.

---

That Alice plant just literally started operating a few weeks ago. There will be data available soon enough. Their permit requires them to measure the TDS of their discharge weekly. That data gets uploaded into NetDMR on a monthly basis. The Driscoll plant will have to go through that permitting process as well. There will be data from their well testing that will be educational as well.

txags92 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

---

Ok so I did a little more math. They claim they are going to take ~3000 mg/L TDS water and produce 3 MGD of ~500 mg/L TDS fresh water. If they are discharging 1.5 MGD of effluent that would presumably be around 5,000 mg/L TDS.

According to what I can find online, the average TDS content of Petranila Creek is about 200 mg/L upstream of Driscoll and upwards of 15,000 mg/L downstream of Driscoll, and Baffin Bay averages around 40,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is typically around 35,000 mg/L).

So if all of that math is close to correct, this discharge should be decreasing the salinity of the creek and bay marginally, not increasing it. Given that Baffin Bay often gets too saline at times, I am not seeing that as a big negative.

---

Baffin has been hypersaline for i don't know how many thousands of years. That is part of what makes it so unique and so productive. So yes lowering that salinity to be similar to the rest of the cr@ppy coastal bays is a huge massive giant negative. Anything that makes this productive incredible unique ecosystem back to ordinary is a huge massive giant negative.

They need the water in the area. Find a better way.

SGrem said:

---

txags92 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

---

Ok so I did a little more math. They claim they are going to take ~3000 mg/L TDS water and produce 3 MGD of ~500 mg/L TDS fresh water. If they are discharging 1.5 MGD of effluent that would presumably be around 5,000 mg/L TDS.

According to what I can find online, the average TDS content of Petranila Creek is about 200 mg/L upstream of Driscoll and upwards of 15,000 mg/L downstream of Driscoll, and Baffin Bay averages around 40,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is typically around 35,000 mg/L).

So if all of that math is close to correct, this discharge should be decreasing the salinity of the creek and bay marginally, not increasing it. Given that Baffin Bay often gets too saline at times, I am not seeing that as a big negative.

---

operation.

Baffin has been hypersaline for i don't know how many thousands of years. That is part of what makes it so unique and so productive. So yes lowering that salinity to be similar to the rest of the cr@ppy coastal bays is a huge massive giant negative. Anything that makes this productive incredible unique ecosystem back to ordinary is a huge massive giant negative.

They need the water in the area. Find a better way.

---

Show your data that it will make a meaningful difference in the bay's salinity. Right now I see a lot of certainty being thrown around about the effects you believe will happen without any data to back it up.

SGrem said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SGrem said:

---

txags92 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

---

Ok so I did a little more math. They claim they are going to take ~3000 mg/L TDS water and produce 3 MGD of ~500 mg/L TDS fresh water. If they are discharging 1.5 MGD of effluent that would presumably be around 5,000 mg/L TDS.

According to what I can find online, the average TDS content of Petranila Creek is about 200 mg/L upstream of Driscoll and upwards of 15,000 mg/L downstream of Driscoll, and Baffin Bay averages around 40,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is typically around 35,000 mg/L).

So if all of that math is close to correct, this discharge should be decreasing the salinity of the creek and bay marginally, not increasing it. Given that Baffin Bay often gets too saline at times, I am not seeing that as a big negative.

---

operation.

Baffin has been hypersaline for i don't know how many thousands of years. That is part of what makes it so unique and so productive. So yes lowering that salinity to be similar to the rest of the cr@ppy coastal bays is a huge massive giant negative. Anything that makes this productive incredible unique ecosystem back to ordinary is a huge massive giant negative.

They need the water in the area. Find a better way.

---

Show your data that it will make a meaningful difference in the bay's salinity. Right now I see a lot of certainty being thrown around about the effects you believe will happen without any data to back it up.

---

My comment was to the fact that Baffin has been hypersaline forever. There are only negatives in changing that to less saline.

The data is coastwide and well accepted that the fishing in Baffin is better, partly due to that hypersalinity. Less salinity in other parts of the coast the fishing is not as good.

Indisputable. And has been that way forever. So on that stance the data is negative for less salinity.

Of course I don't have the data. Not my job to have supporting data. But if the entire area and countless fisherman and local govt leaders are not in favor of this you would think the company would provide some benefit studies.

---

That hypersalinity cuts both ways. At times of drought, the salinity often increases to the point it is detrimental for marine life in the estuaries by enhancing brown tide blooms that create hypoxic conditions. It has risen so high that it largely killed fish populations in northern parts of the bay several times in the past. We have also dramatically decreased the flow of water to Baffin Bay over time from upstream sources and spring flows. So the hypersalinity of today is likely quite different from what has existed for thousands of years. The productivity of Baffin Bay relative to other coastal bays is likely to be more influenced by the lack of commercial fishing and shrimping pressure than the peculiarities of the hypersalinity. The healthy sea grass beds in Baffin also are something that have been largely eliminated by shrimp dragging in most of the other Texas bays and they are a potent nursery for bait and game fish.

As for the data you are hoping for, again, they just started drilling the water wells today. Until they measure the yield of those wells and the TDS concentrations, any studies or modelling they tried to do would just be a guess. Do you really want them designing their plant and permitting their discharges through TCEQ based off wild ass guesses? Or do you want them to collect the data first and then do the design and studies? We are still years from them being in position to build the plant and bring discharges online. There will be plenty of time to examine the design and proposed discharges during that time.

txags92 said:

---

SGrem said:

---

txags92 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

To put it maybe a better perspective that makes it easier to imagine:

Baffin Bay (just the bay itself, not including upper Laguna Madre) is roughly 64,000 acres surface area. Average depth is about 8 feet.

That means that the bay itself holds in the ballpark of 512,000 acre feet of water. Again, not including ULM.

Assume worst case scenario of discharge of 4.5mgd from the plant. That is equivalent to 13.81 acre feet of water.

That is .0000000083% of the volume of the bay.

---

I was told there would be no math.

---

Ok so I did a little more math. They claim they are going to take ~3000 mg/L TDS water and produce 3 MGD of ~500 mg/L TDS fresh water. If they are discharging 1.5 MGD of effluent that would presumably be around 5,000 mg/L TDS.

According to what I can find online, the average TDS content of Petranila Creek is about 200 mg/L upstream of Driscoll and upwards of 15,000 mg/L downstream of Driscoll, and Baffin Bay averages around 40,000 mg/L TDS (seawater is typically around 35,000 mg/L).

So if all of that math is close to correct, this discharge should be decreasing the salinity of the creek and bay marginally, not increasing it. Given that Baffin Bay often gets too saline at times, I am not seeing that as a big negative.

---

operation.

Baffin has been hypersaline for i don't know how many thousands of years. That is part of what makes it so unique and so productive. So yes lowering that salinity to be similar to the rest of the cr@ppy coastal bays is a huge massive giant negative. Anything that makes this productive incredible unique ecosystem back to ordinary is a huge massive giant negative.

They need the water in the area. Find a better way.

---

Show your data that it will make a meaningful difference in the bay's salinity. Right now I see a lot of certainty being thrown around about the effects you believe will happen without any data to back it up.

---

The data and burden of proof should be on the companies to provide not the outdoorsmen and conservationist that are against this happening.

Regardless of the theoreticals, like sgrem stated: it's a very unique bay system and the companies have an entire coast and offshore they can potentially offload to

IMO, baffin is great because it has always been hard to get to, there are not croaker stands on every corner, and weekend potlickers would rip their lower unit off just running around trying to find a place to fish. The salinity plays next to nothing in the size of the trout down there, it's important to spawning though, but that goes the same for anywhere specks live. I don't know a whole lot of the specifics of this project, but I highly doubt they are going to do something to damage baffin. And as far as the local politicians being pissed for being kept in the dark, that is likely due to having their hands being kept out of the money pot, and nothing more. Whatever the outcome, hope Baffin remains the same place it's always been.