The Port of Corpus Christi Desalination project, which aims to build a central plant on Harbor Island, has entered a new review stage. Agencies are now evaluating additional permits that will determine how and where the plant would discharge treated brine.
However, while the port moves forward with expanded plans, the debate between officials and concerned residents remains heated, especially over the proposed discharge locations.
Offshore Discharge Permit Now in Review
Recently, Port of Corpus Christi Desalination officials submitted a new application to the TCEQ seeking an offshore discharge permit. If approved, the plant would be authorized to release up to 190 million gallons of discharge daily into the Gulf of Mexico. This step supports the port’s broader plan to double the plant’s production capacity—from 50 million gallons per day to 100 million gallons.
In parallel, the Port of Corpus Christi Desalination project also filed a USACE permit outlining two discharge options: one into the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, already permitted under earlier approvals, and a second outfall into the Gulf of Mexico.
Transitioning Plans: From Bay to Gulf
Initially, the project was permitted to discharge 96 million gallons daily into the ship channel. That decision sparked backlash from environmental groups, local leaders, and Port Aransas residents, who warned of ecological harm to marine life and coastal habitats.
To address those concerns, port officials have communicated a preference for a single offshore outfall—a solution they believe would reduce environmental risks. Port CEO Kent Britton says this approach offers “maximum flexibility” without committing to both discharge points.
Still, both options remain in the application, fueling mistrust.
Critics Demand One Clear Path Forward
Local environmental advocates, including the Port Aransas Conservancy (PAC), remain unconvinced. President James King criticized the port for keeping the inshore option on the table, calling the area “the lifeblood of the marine cycle” for various species.
“The port is refusing to remove the inshore outfall,” King said. “We’ll continue to oppose this until it’s taken completely off the table.”
Residents echoed these sentiments during an April 17 Port Aransas City Council meeting. Longtime advocate Cathy Fulton urged officials to amend the application and remove all references to the bay discharge. “We’ve been clear from the beginning — take it offshore,” she stated firmly.
Environmental Impact Still at the Center
The port maintains that keeping two discharge points provides a safeguard. In its USACE application, officials argued that dual outfalls would allow flow adjustments based on seasonal or environmental factors, thus minimizing harm to marine ecosystems. Their documentation claims both proposed designs aim to “minimize adverse impacts” through location and rapid dispersion techniques.
Despite these assurances, opponents insist that no mitigation can undo the ecological disruption of a bay discharge. “That is the worst location you could ever dream up on the Texas coast,” King stated.
What’s Next for the Project?
Britton said offshore approval may lead to dropping the inshore permit, but water crises could revive pressure to use it.
A separate TCEQ application for water rights to draw 350,000 acre-feet of seawater annually is also under review. The port clarified it doesn’t plan to operate the facility but will transfer the permits to the City of Corpus Christi or a third-party developer.
Depending on the design and discharge strategy, the plant could cost between $2 billion and $3.5 billion.
Local Leaders Push for Unified Action
During the city council meeting, Port Aransas Mayor Wendy Moore reiterated the community’s firm stance. “They know our number one priority is an offshore discharge,” she said. “We’re not changing our mind.”
Moore and concerned citizens continue to urge the port to hold public forums and maintain transparency throughout the permitting process.
The discharge location decision will shape the plant’s future and impact the long-term health of the Coastal Bend ecosystem.