Council postpones Inner Harbor desalination vote after hours of debate; asks state for written clarifications

Corpus Christi City Council on Tuesday postponed a final decision on a staff‑proposed amendment to continue design and procurement work on the Inner Harbor desalination project, giving staff until Aug. 26 to return with additional written material requested from state officials.

The postponement came after more than 11 hours of public testimony and several hours of council discussion on alternative water‑supply options and the project’s cost. Councilman Eric Cantu moved to postpone any action on the proposed amendment; the motion passed. In discussion, several council members urged staff to obtain written clarification from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) about whether SWIFT funds already allocated to the project could be repurposed for another desalination or groundwater project without triggering penalties, and what costs the city would face if plans were delayed or canceled.

The debate exposed two recurring concerns: the project’s rising price estimates and timing for new supplies. Staff and their outside design and program managers said the updated construction estimate had risen from earlier planning figures and that much of the current cost projection was a class‑5, early‑stage estimate that could be refined as design work advances to 30% and 60% milestones. City staff said the city has already spent and encumbered tens of millions of dollars on prior design and procurement phases, and that some financing elements—particularly low‑interest loans issued in the SWIFT program—are project specific and could not be easily reallocated without legal and financial consequences. The city’s chief financial manager warned of interest owed on bonds and IRS “spend down” rules if the city canceled the project after borrowing.

During the afternoon and evening, staff and a consultant from Garver presented an analysis of alternative groundwater projects that might move treated water into the Corpus system sooner or at lower cost. Garver estimated per‑thousand‑gallon cost ranges across four alternatives — a private ranch well‑field (EV Ranch), a large private Evangeline supply, the city’s Nueces River well project (city‑owned), and a South Texas Water Authority supply — and concluded that the city‑owned Nueces River wells offered the lowest long‑term cost under many scenarios. Council members asked staff for detailed cost breakdowns, timeline estimates and risks for each option; several asked staff to obtain written clarifications from TWDB and return quickly, with requests that any short delay not irreparably halt existing work on well drilling or other near‑term water steps.

Public speakers were sharply divided: residents, environmental groups and some neighborhood advocates urged the council to delay or reject the Inner Harbor plan because of cost, potential bay impacts and the project’s location adjacent to the Hillcrest community; industrial and business groups, plus several council members and water users, urged continued forward movement to avoid curtailment risks and to secure a drought‑proof supply. Nonprofit, faith and civic speakers asked the council to weigh social and equity consequences of price increases for residents on fixed incomes.

After a motion to postpone carried, Mayor Paulette Guajardo and staff said they would request TWDB answers in writing and that staff would return (as soon as the responses arrive) to a special meeting if required. The council did not take a vote on the project amendment at this meeting and directed staff to continue near‑term water work—wells and pilot efforts—where those efforts were already underway.