Public commenters press city on desalination permits, far-field modeling and sludge disposal plans

Public commenters used the City Council’s public-comment period to press for more testing, transparency and answers about the proposed Inner Harbor desalination project and its discharge permitting.

At the start of the public-comment segment, consultant and project opponents cited a recent decision by outside counsel and the city attorney advising not to move forward with a formal far-field model for the project. “There’s been a decision and recommendations from outside legal and your legal team that right now we do not move forward with a formal far field model,” said a commenter quoting project staff and legal advice. The commenter and others said that steering resources away from far‑field modeling would not support defending the city’s draft TCEQ discharge permit.

City staff previously told the council the current regulatory path relies on near‑field mixing models and a planned Tier 2 ecological impact study. Staff told council that preparing a formal far‑field model could take months and might push the city past planned fall deadlines for TCEQ hearings; one staff summary cited cost estimates that it said could be “tremendous.” The council’s legal counsel and staff were quoted as saying a far‑field analysis would likely “not advance our project” and could be time- and cost-prohibitive before the TCEQ hearing.

Multiple speakers — including residents who described technical or family experience with desalination — urged the council to require or release far‑field modeling and transparency about sludge and brine disposal. Blanca Parkinson, who described a professional desalination background via a family member, argued the city had modified its permit application in ways that affected sludge handling and argued the city had earlier told the public that solids would go to landfill but that the amended filing showed a future path back into the bay. “Follow the orange line…Everything is gonna go back in,” Parkinson told council, directing members to a flowchart she said the amended application contains.

Other commenters raised water-poaching or gauge‑malfunction claims, asked for public release of commercial usage data, questioned who was directing modeling decisions, and pressed the council on complaints filed under HUD and other processes. Attorney Matt Manning, speaking during public comment, urged the council to consider due-process concerns tied to an open HUD complaint before advancing desalination actions in the affected community.

City staff and counsel responded publicly during the comment period that the city must follow TCEQ regulatory requirements, that the city has a draft TCEQ permit to defend, and that the near-field hydrodynamic and mixing work plus an ecological analysis comprise the immediate regulatory path. Staff also said that pursuing far-field modeling now would likely delay permit hearing schedules and incur substantial costs.

Why it matters: Commenters framed the issue as one of environmental protection and public trust: they want to ensure the discharge permit and environmental modeling fully capture effects beyond the regulated mixing zone and to know how sludge and concentrate will be handled. City staff stressed regulatory deadlines and said their work focuses on the near-field modeling and defending the current draft permit at TCEQ.

What happened next: No council vote occurred on desalination at this meeting. Council members and staff heard public comment, and staff committed to continue work on the TCEQ permitting path and to respond through staff briefings and follow-up materials.