Look you can write a whole essay if you want but you will never convince me dumping effluent from a desalination unit is going to "help or improve" the bay system. You are just putting money over the ecosystem. I can totally understand why a lot of people don't want it. I'd say let's just call it agree to disagree because I am never going to agree on this and I'm sure a lot of others will not either.
STx desalination plant controversy
14,741 Views |
232 Replies |
Last: 15 hrs ago by schmellba99
docb said:
Look you can write a whole essay if you want but you will never convince me dumping effluent from a desalination unit is going to "help or improve" the bay system. You are just putting money over the ecosystem. I can totally understand why a lot of people don't want it. I'd say let's just call it agree to disagree because I am never going to agree on this and I'm sure a lot of others will not either.
I am not putting money over anything. I am saying that you guys managed to stop this project before they ever had a chance to find out if it would be beneficial for the bay or not. It would have been very easy to ask them to do a detailed study of the impact of their planned effluent on the creek and the bay once they had data from their production wells to base it on. The flows from Petronila Creek are already a concern because of how much nitrogen and phosphorous come to the bay from the agricultural runoff. This effluent would have had the chance to dilute those other nutrients year round. But now, it will get piped down a well instead and cost you more to do it.
I don't honestly know if the flow would have been good or bad for the bay. I think it would have been good, but I was hoping to see some study work done to prove that out prior to starting the discharges. People have been worried for years that flows to the bay are dropping and that the salinity may eventually get too high, but in your mind there is zero chance that discharging millions of gallons of water that is slightly less saline than the creek it is going into could ever possibly be beneficial to the bay? Can you share the scientific studies you used to come to that conclusion?
I know your response will just be that we should change nothing, ever, and hope it all stays the same forever, but that ship has already sailed. Flows to the bay are changing and will continue to change in the future. We can either study the effects and try to mitigate them where possible, or we can ignore the changes and stick our heads in the sand until it is too obvious to ignore any longer.
I'd be good with studies from the US Fish and Wildlife and Texas Parks and Wildlife to say this is a benefit before proceeding.
lol at Texas parks and wildlife. Talk about an organization that only cares about money
So, pure hypothesis, but rather than desalination, etc, wouldn't putting in rain catching systems make more sense?
From what I found, a high average family uses 150,000 gallons per year of water.
In Houston, that would be caught by 6,000 sq ft.
A roof system seems like it could take a lot of the edge off existing systems/I'm guessing rainfall would be a simple supply to clean.
(Roof, say car ports, etc. I realize not many homes have 6000 sq ft of roof.)
From what I found, a high average family uses 150,000 gallons per year of water.
In Houston, that would be caught by 6,000 sq ft.
A roof system seems like it could take a lot of the edge off existing systems/I'm guessing rainfall would be a simple supply to clean.
(Roof, say car ports, etc. I realize not many homes have 6000 sq ft of roof.)
https://www.texasobserver.org/corpus-christi-water-exxon-desalinization/#:~:text=Never%20mind%20that%20Corpus%20Christi%2C%20a%20mid%2Dsized,water%20plan%2013%20years%20ahead%20of%20schedule.
An older article but a good history of the current situation and discusses the magnitude of water being needed.
https://www.texasobserver.org/corpus-christi-water-crisis-tesla-industrial-expansion/
Another more recent article
An older article but a good history of the current situation and discusses the magnitude of water being needed.
https://www.texasobserver.org/corpus-christi-water-crisis-tesla-industrial-expansion/
Another more recent article
docb said:
https://www.texasobserver.org/corpus-christi-water-exxon-desalinization/#:~:text=Never%20mind%20that%20Corpus%20Christi%2C%20a%20mid%2Dsized,water%20plan%2013%20years%20ahead%20of%20schedule.
An older article but a good history of the current situation and discusses the magnitude of water being needed.
Decent article, but a bit behind where things stand now as you mentioned. Lets just say I am intimately familiar with the ongoing issues with the regional water plan for the Corpus area. They are a few weeks away from approving the final version of the next 5 year plan for Region N and the various desalination projects as well as disputes between City of Corpus and other water providers have sparked a lot of discussion in the regional planning group meetings.
Honestly, I am way more concerned about the plans for several of the planned facilities to discharge their seawater desal brine directly in the CC Bay than I was about the ones planning to discharge brackish GW desal brine into creeks leading to Baffin. The salinity levels in the brine will be significantly different and the environment the brines are going into will be very different. Corpus was supposed to have a meeting today to vote on one of the projects but I have not heard how that turned out.
Bradley.Kohr.II said:
So, pure hypothesis, but rather than desalination, etc, wouldn't putting in rain catching systems make more sense?
From what I found, a high average family uses 150,000 gallons per year of water.
In Houston, that would be caught by 6,000 sq ft.
A roof system seems like it could take a lot of the edge off existing systems/I'm guessing rainfall would be a simple supply to clean.
(Roof, say car ports, etc. I realize not many homes have 6000 sq ft of roof.)
Throughout the Caribbean, a large portion of the domestic water for most houses comes from rainwater cisterns. We could do a lot of that in Texas, but we do need to be careful about where you do it and how you treat/filter the water, because in some areas there are not insignificant levels of pollution captured along with rainwater. Runoff quality from asphalt shingled roofs is also different from tile or metals roofs also. We should be using it alot for things like watering grass and stuff like that instead of potable water, but getting people to incorporate it into new designs and construction is hard work in a bottom dollar business like residential construction. We don't want to start putting in so many requirements that we start to look like California.
It would help but those industrial facilities are on the magnitude of using millions of gallons per day so it's a lot to keep up with. I'd certainly do it on my own house if I lived down there.
I was thinking something like a second water line, but one running into a treatment facility.
Agree asphalt might be an issue.
Agree asphalt might be an issue.
Bradley.Kohr.II said:
I was thinking something like a second water line, but one running into a treatment facility.
Agree asphalt might be an issue.
Industry uses by far the bulk of the water down there from what I can gather, and the people are suffering as a result of it. It's been a combination of drought in the lakes that feed Corpus Christi and very poor planning that has caused this crisis.
docb said:Bradley.Kohr.II said:
I was thinking something like a second water line, but one running into a treatment facility.
Agree asphalt might be an issue.
Industry uses by far the bulk of the water down there from what I can gather, and the people are suffering as a result of it. It's been a combination of drought in the lakes that feed Corpus Christi and very poor planning that has caused this crisis.
We can definitely agree that drought and poor local planning for industrial growth have been the drivers for getting as far behind as they are. Not just local drought, but exceptional drought far upstream on the rivers feeding the lakes.
I really wish it was easier to do a metal roof but lots of jurisdictions force developers to not allow metal roofs in neighborhoods. Same for using siding.
I get that a lot of people associate siding with cheaper homes/materials but done right it looks great.
Stuff like this:
I get that a lot of people associate siding with cheaper homes/materials but done right it looks great.
Stuff like this:
Well it looks like Corpus just put themselves squarely into a pickle. I take back what I said about being smarter lately. They voted down continuing on with the inner harbor desal plant, which was the farthest along, permitted, etc. They have already spent about $47 million on it and have TWDB money in hand that they will now have to pay back, with interest to the tune of several million more. They already have a letter in hand from TWDB telling them that they are not allowed to use the money for a different project, but they have decided that they think they can talk TWDB into letting them do so anyway. The region N plan is about to go final in a few weeks and it includes that plant as part of CC's plans to have an adequate water supply. Going to be interesting to see what they do next. Sounds like everybody's water bill will be going up $8 per month to pay for the money that is now wasted and they still need to find another way to come up with all of that water that is needed.
docb said:
Look you can write a whole essay if you want but you will never convince me dumping effluent from a desalination unit is going to "help or improve" the bay system. You are just putting money over the ecosystem. I can totally understand why a lot of people don't want it. I'd say let's just call it agree to disagree because I am never going to agree on this and I'm sure a lot of others will not either.
And it's the folks like you that end up keeping progress or better ways of doing things from happening. Because you flatly admit that there is nothing that could sway your opinion.
But you'll cry and moan and wail when the water runs dry, that's for sure.
Bradley.Kohr.II said:
So, pure hypothesis, but rather than desalination, etc, wouldn't putting in rain catching systems make more sense?
From what I found, a high average family uses 150,000 gallons per year of water.
In Houston, that would be caught by 6,000 sq ft.
A roof system seems like it could take a lot of the edge off existing systems/I'm guessing rainfall would be a simple supply to clean.
(Roof, say car ports, etc. I realize not many homes have 6000 sq ft of roof.)
You have to have rain in order to have a rain catchment system work. That area doesn't have a whole lot of precipitation. For example, Alice averages about 28 inches a year with 6 months averaging less than 2" per month.
Desal plants are going to be a necessity if people keep moving to San Antonio and Austin. There isn't enough water there.
Just saw an article on that. They are going to be in a bind before they know it, and so many people that are celebrating this "win" are going to be the first in line wailing and gnashing their teeth when Corpus has to go into water use restrictions or their bill continues to climb.
There is no perfect solution - no matter what is done, there will be some type of effect on the ecosystem. That is wholly unavoidable, yet there are a stupid number of people that don't seem to grasp this. They blame the industry in the area, but fail to realize that same industry is the lifeblood of the region. Without it, Corpus, Rockport, etc. will die off because there isn't anything else down there that can provide anywhere close to the level of income for as many people as the ship channel there does. Not to mention all of the downstream dependents that people don't even think of.
Until Texas sees population go from the 30MM we have now down to 15MM, water use is going to be a major issue. And it isn't going away. And anything and everything done will have financial or ecological impacts to some degree.
There is no perfect solution - no matter what is done, there will be some type of effect on the ecosystem. That is wholly unavoidable, yet there are a stupid number of people that don't seem to grasp this. They blame the industry in the area, but fail to realize that same industry is the lifeblood of the region. Without it, Corpus, Rockport, etc. will die off because there isn't anything else down there that can provide anywhere close to the level of income for as many people as the ship channel there does. Not to mention all of the downstream dependents that people don't even think of.
Until Texas sees population go from the 30MM we have now down to 15MM, water use is going to be a major issue. And it isn't going away. And anything and everything done will have financial or ecological impacts to some degree.
I watched a bit of the council debate after the hours of public comment, and it seems like one of the things that really hurt the folks arguing for the plant was that the contractor (Kiewit) did not send anybody to appear at the meeting and their pricing estimates have jumped around all over the place in the leadup to this vote. There were council members saying they had heard number as high as $2B, while the most recent # from Kiewit was a (not firm) $1.2B, against the $757M that was the basis for the money they got from TWDB.
Given that so much of the debate was centered around the pricing and what Kiewit did or didn't tell various members of the council or city government, they really should have had somebody there to provide clarity. And in general, when you have the council voting on a contract to give your company $50M for the next phase of the work, it is a very bad look to not show up to the meeting, despite being invited/asked by several members of the council.
Given that so much of the debate was centered around the pricing and what Kiewit did or didn't tell various members of the council or city government, they really should have had somebody there to provide clarity. And in general, when you have the council voting on a contract to give your company $50M for the next phase of the work, it is a very bad look to not show up to the meeting, despite being invited/asked by several members of the council.
You honestly have no clue
I'd be mad at Kiewit as well for not having a rep there, that's understandable. And somebody probably is getting canned over the lack of representation. Even with the presence in the area that Kiewit has (which is a huge reason they were deemed as the best value contractor), they should have had the senior project team there, including the project sponsor within Kiewit. Dumb, dumb move on their part.
The budget fluctuation likely could have been easily explained by somebody with knowledge. An amazingly small amount of people have a true understanding of how design and budgets work for projects, much less a grasp of how commodity and hard goods fluctuate in price daily.
When we looked at the project and bid on it, it was in the ~$800MM range. But I guarantee that three things have happened, which would explain the increase in anticipated cost:
1. Scope creep. 100% the City and their design firm have continually added bells and whistles as the iterations of design go from the engineer's desk to Kiewit's desk for pricing.
2. Commodity pricing has increased. Steel, concrete, fuel, labor, etc. all go up. They never go down. With the size of this project, even a small increase in a half dozen hard goods pricing makes a massive impact on cost.
3. Regulatory issues, added requirements and delays.
The budget fluctuation likely could have been easily explained by somebody with knowledge. An amazingly small amount of people have a true understanding of how design and budgets work for projects, much less a grasp of how commodity and hard goods fluctuate in price daily.
When we looked at the project and bid on it, it was in the ~$800MM range. But I guarantee that three things have happened, which would explain the increase in anticipated cost:
1. Scope creep. 100% the City and their design firm have continually added bells and whistles as the iterations of design go from the engineer's desk to Kiewit's desk for pricing.
2. Commodity pricing has increased. Steel, concrete, fuel, labor, etc. all go up. They never go down. With the size of this project, even a small increase in a half dozen hard goods pricing makes a massive impact on cost.
3. Regulatory issues, added requirements and delays.
docb said:
You honestly have no clue
Okey dokey Mr. Pokey. It's not like you haven't make your thoughts and opinions abundantly clear on this thread, more than once.
But hey, Mr. Mysterious Joe - you do you.
Thanks for correcting my spelling on Kiewits name. There was an obvious lost in translation thing going on with some of the council members about how the design-build process works and why Kiewits didn't just give them a firm fixed priced quote now. Many people really don't understand that the earlier in the process that you force somebody to lock in their price, the more uncertainties and risks there are that need to be covered by a firm fixed price.
The farther into the design and pilot process you get, the more you can rule out some of the risks and firm up the uncertainties and the price will typically go down accordingly when you don't have to carry contingencies for those unknowns. Having somebody there from the Kiewit side to explain that would have gone a long ways towards settling some of the questions.
But I think in the end, having all the people there accusing them of racism for siting the plant where they did obviously unsettled the political instincts for a number of the members.
The farther into the design and pilot process you get, the more you can rule out some of the risks and firm up the uncertainties and the price will typically go down accordingly when you don't have to carry contingencies for those unknowns. Having somebody there from the Kiewit side to explain that would have gone a long ways towards settling some of the questions.
But I think in the end, having all the people there accusing them of racism for siting the plant where they did obviously unsettled the political instincts for a number of the members.
Anyone know where that $757M estimate came from? All I could find online was that it was from the city manager, but not how they came up with that number.
It was a Progressive Design Build contract model, so even less is known on scope/costs at the time designer/contractor is selected vs DB.
Aggie_Boomin 21 said:
Anyone know where that $757M estimate came from? All I could find online was that it was from the city manager, but not how they came up with that number.
That was probably from the engineering firm used to come up with the initial conceptual design. Basically a guess, and not really even a good one as most engineering firms absolutely suck at construction cost estimates.
I've worked for a couple of engineering firms and they all are terrible at it. Most engineers think you can just scale a cost up linearly along with the increase in production, but it doesn't work that way or even close to that way in the real world. Most firms also have zero clue as to actual materials costs. Hell, at the last engineering firm I worked at I had to fight tooth and nail to get them to change their concrete costs, which were about 10 years old.
Part of it also is that the design firm doesn't want to be the one that tells the owner that their wish list far exceeds their budget because they are afraid that they won't get future work if they do. IMO, better to know costs up front than to find out on bid day when bids come in at 1.5x to 2x the engineer's estimate that had been used by the owner to sell the project to the council or taxpayers.
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..
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.
docb said:
Look you can write a whole essay if you want but you will never convince me dumping effluent from a desalination unit is going to "help or improve" the bay system. You are just putting money over the ecosystem. I can totally understand why a lot of people don't want it. I'd say let's just call it agree to disagree because I am never going to agree on this and I'm sure a lot of others will not either.
Same
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.
So the Corpus project that just got voted down at least in part due to an excessive price tag was going to discharge to the CC channel. You think adding many millions more to pipe it out to the ocean would have made it better? Environmentally it probably would, but the cost can't be ignored either.
Quote:
We should be using it alot for things like watering grass and stuff like that instead of potable water, but getting people to incorporate it into new designs and construction is hard work in a bottom dollar business like residential construction
Rainwater capture is around .7 gallons per SF of roof per inch of rain.
A 2500 SF roof in Central Texas will capture somewhere around 40-50K worth of rainwater per year on average.
Sounds like a lot, but most yards 1/3-1/2 acre will use triple that & during the driest years when you need it the most, the water isn't there. Large storage tanks to capture excess are prohibitively expensive, large & unsightly. Run an irrigation system off a 2500 gallon tank & you might be able to water a small yard twice before the entire tank is dry.
Combine that with the cheap price of water, the expense of Rainwater systems (15K for a small system and up from there) most folks building houses are maxing out loans & will move in 5 years anyway means it won't get done.
They aren't worth it at present.... water prices will need to go way up in order for them to get a return on the investment.
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.
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.
Apache said:Quote:
We should be using it alot for things like watering grass and stuff like that instead of potable water, but getting people to incorporate it into new designs and construction is hard work in a bottom dollar business like residential construction
Rainwater capture is around .7 gallons per SF of roof per inch of rain.
A 2500 SF roof in Central Texas will capture somewhere around 40-50K worth of rainwater per year on average.
Sounds like a lot, but most yards 1/3-1/2 acre will use triple that & during the driest years when you need it the most, the water isn't there. Large storage tanks to capture excess are prohibitively expensive, large & unsightly. Run an irrigation system off a 2500 gallon tank & you might be able to water a small yard twice before the entire tank is dry.
Combine that with the cheap price of water, the expense of Rainwater systems (15K for a small system and up from there) most folks building houses are maxing out loans & will move in 5 years anyway means it won't get done.
They aren't worth it at present.... water prices will need to go way up in order for them to get a return on the investment.
1) I agree with you that the volumes and economics aren't there for the way we currently have things set up.
2) Nobody in Central Texas needs to be watering a 1/3 to 1/2 acre lawn, particularly through the driest years when the water just isn't there. We are beyond the point where that is a wasteful use of water that we just don't have. If you like Central Texas and the hill country to have flowing springs, we need to stop making large scale watering of ornamental turf part of our landscape.
3) If we have to build multiple very large brackish groundwater desal plants to satisfy the demand for the water needed to keep watering 1/3 to 1/2 acre lawns, and pay to deep well inject the brine, you will quickly get your wish of water prices going way up.
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.
Watering a lawn need to be outlawed in most of TX.
My thought was that the rain capture system gets plumbed into a municipal pipe, and treated like a raw water intake - same as reservoir/river water.
My thought was that the rain capture system gets plumbed into a municipal pipe, and treated like a raw water intake - same as reservoir/river water.
Featured Stories
See All
34:07
5h ago
834
A&M looks to end 15-game drought against top-10 teams on the road
by Olin Buchanan
42:14
11h ago
1.5k
5:43
10h ago
4.0k
Aggie legacy Hunter McKinney accepts PWO spot with Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger