Council briefed on Inner Harbor Water Treatment Campus design, cost increases and alternate water projects

City staff and project partners briefed the council on the Inner Harbor Water Treatment Campus (the city’s seawater/brackish desalination project) and related alternatives, showing a 10% design cost model that raises the current capital estimate and projects a measurable impact on water rates.

Project status and cost model: Program staff said the project is in a progressive design‑build sequence. Friese Nichols completed a 10% “basis of design” and the design‑builder (Kiewit) provided a cost model based on that design; the 10% cost model increased the estimated full project capital from the earlier $757 million figure (staff’s planning estimate) to roughly $1.19 billion. Project managers emphasized the estimate is a class‑4 (10% design) figure and that further refinement is expected at 30% and 60% design, with a 60% guaranteed maximum price (GMP) planned before final construction authorization. Program Management Office Director Brett Van Hazel described this as an iterative process in which costs and scope are sharpened as design advances.

Rate and budget implications: Corpus Christi Water staff presented how the higher capital and ongoing operating costs (including power, membranes and maintenance) translate into debt service and projected increases in water rates. The presentation showed an example household using about 6,000 gallons a month would see a projected increase of roughly $11.38 per month when the project is fully in service in the out years; staff noted grant funding or other offsets could reduce that increment. Officials stressed that a large share of the project’s cost burden would fall to major industrial users (more than 50% of the expected additional costs) through their proportional consumption and through a voluntary surcharge mechanism the council has discussed previously.

Environmental, technical and community questions: Residents and some council members pressed staff about ecological risks and monitoring. Citizens asked about effects on local fisheries, eutrophication and algae, brine discharge locations, PFAS contamination and how plume dilution was modeled. City engineers and consultants said the project includes multistage pretreatment, high‑efficiency energy recovery and ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis processes designed to produce drinking‑water quality effluent and to remove PFAS; they argued state and federal permits and an independent technical review are part of the pipeline to test whether any proposed intake or discharge location is acceptable.

Parallel water sources and quick wins: Staff summarized parallel efforts to reduce the city’s exposure to water shortage by advancing several alternatives simultaneously: (1) drilling and testing brackish groundwater wells (work under way with multiple wells drilled and early water into the system planned); (2) work to expand and reuse wastewater (type‑1 effluent reuse) for irrigation and nonpotable uses; and (3) pursuing negotiated purchases or low‑interest loans from the state for pipeline and surface‑water improvements. Staff described the “four‑pronged” communications campaign (surface water, groundwater, reuse and desalination) to explain the city’s portfolio approach.

Why it matters: Council members and the public framed the briefing around tradeoffs—how rapidly the city can secure water, at what cost to ratepayers, and with what environmental risk. Staff asked council to accept a progressive schedule of decisions: approve a design amendment to advance from 10% to 60% design, receive updated cost models at 30% and 60% design and return to council with a GMP for consideration. Several council members asked for wider, clearer outreach on costs and alternatives and for independent scientific review of modeling about intake/discharge impacts before any construction contracts were finalized.

Next steps: City staff said the next formal step will be council consideration of a 60% design authorization and associated amendments; periodic briefings will continue. The project team also asked for continued time to work with partners who offered alternative supply options (groundwater, STWA, Evangeline) and to pursue grant funding to reduce ratepayer burden. The city stressed that the demonstration plant will begin operations in late September to gather performance and water‑quality data that will help refine the full project design. No final construction authorization or GMP was approved at this meeting.