The City Council rejected the treatment plant last year over cost and environmental concerns, but plans resurfaced as the city’s water woes continued.
A bitterly divided Corpus Christi City Council voted early Wednesday morning to delay a decision on reviving an almost billion-dollar water plant it had rejected nine months earlier.
The 7-2 vote came at 2:20 a.m., almost 15 hours into a meeting that drew extensive interest from residents who argued for and against building a desalination plant that council members voted down last year over environmental and cost concerns.
The proposed plant is not expected to begin delivering water until late 2029, but supporters fear that without long-term supplies, the city’s economy will freeze, driving away residents and businesses and crippling the important tourism industry.
Opponents expressed deep concern about the proposed plant’s impact on Corpus Christi Bay, and some doubted the fairness of an environmental study that concluded the plant’s salty discharge would not affect sea life.
The coastal city, Texas’ eighth largest city, is staring down a persistent drought that has placed it on course to being the first U.S. city to run short of water sometime next year. Desalination — the process of turning seawater drinkable — has been seen by some as the cure to get the city through future dry spells.
Wednesday morning’s vote delayed action until Sept. 1, about a year after the council abandoned the initial effort to build the Inner Harbor plant.
“You’re asking us to go out on a limb and I’m not comfortable with it,” said Council Member Gil Hernandez, who first suggested delaying the vote. Hernandez was among the five council members who voted last year to pull the plug on the project.
Several council members were also troubled by the water department’s inability to secure contracts with industrial companies to purchase water from the proposed plant.
With frustration clear in his voice, Council Member Eric Cantu told Corpus Christi Water Chief Operating Officer Nick Winkelmann that he was disappointed contracts have not been secured.
“You want us to pay all this money and not have a guarantee from the refineries that they’re not going to bail on us and go find their own water or buy their own water source,” Cantu said.
Council Member Roland Barrera, who voted in September to continue the desalination project, said he understood why companies have been slow to commit to a contract with the city.
“It’s very hard to enter into a contract without any certainty that you’re going to have a product, and right now this council has been very indecisive,” he said. “It’s very difficult to engage into a contract … when you don’t have that certainty.”
Council Member Carolyn Vaughn responded: “I don’t think this council has been indecisive. That is what I call due diligence.”
The vote to delay came after the city water department’s bond rating was downgraded Monday by Fitch credit rating service. The rating was lowered from AA- to A- for, among other things, city leaders’ tendency to defer decisions related to key water supply projects.
“Fitch believes these delays limit planning certainty and reflect weaker governance during a period of elevated operating risk,” the company said.
“We were downgraded because [desalination] was killed last year,” said Mayor Paulette Guajardo, who supports the project. “Be accountable for your votes.”
The city’s water department, the mayor and some City Council members view the Inner Harbor Desalination Project as the key to a long-term, steady water supply capable of producing up to 30 million gallons of drinking water a day, even in a drought.
Last year, the same council members voted 5-4 to pull the plug on the Inner Harbor project after nearly decade of planning amid fierce criticism over potential harm to the Corpus Christi Bay’s ecosystem and the ballooning price tag — from $160 million when it was first approved in 2019 to $1.2 billion when the plant was abandoned in September.
Time and the heightening crisis have not changed the minds of project opponents, including many who voiced concerns about the impact on Corpus Christi Bay’s ecosystem.
“The question is: Do we want to be known as the city sucked up by Exxon, or the city that stood up to the people killing the planet?” Corpus Christi resident Guillermo Gallegos told the City Council.
More than 100 residents signed up to speak to the council, most of them to address the desalination plant during a public comment period that stretched beyond six hours.
Opponents also accused the City Council of prioritizing industry — the largest consumers of the city’s water — over the city’s affordability and the environment.
“Water is not a commodity to be sold to outsiders while citizens and our habitats come last,” a young speaker told the council, adding: “We cannot drink money.”
But Brittany Clendening said the city’s economy is on the line.
She said she moved to the city in 2020, when “we had new investments, we had new restaurants, bars, and coffee shops opening all the time, but ever since curtailment, we haven’t seen that.”
“Continued delays in securing water will cause job loss and could push us into a regional recession,” Clendening said.
For the initial project, the city in 2017 received a $2.75 million loan from the state for the project’s preliminary stages. The state provided another $222 million in loans three years later, then agreed to loan the city more than half a billion dollars in addition, of which $10 million has been disbursed.
After the City Council pulled the plug on the desalination plant in September, the decision drew criticism from across the state, including Gov. Greg Abbott.
“Corpus Christi is a victim not because of lack of water. They’re a victim because of a lack of ability to make a decision,” Abbott said at a news conference in March.
Abbott threatened a state takeover of the city: “We can only give them a little time more before the state of Texas has to take over and micromanage that city and run that city.”
This time around, the water department brought the estimated cost down to $978.8 million, about 25% cheaper than previous estimates, by reducing construction and engineering services costs. Winkelmann on Tuesday called it a “preliminary guaranteed maximum price.”
The water department has already corralled a number of contractors to jump on the plant. It’s fully permitted, about 60% designed, and would be built along the bay in Hillcrest, a historically Black neighborhood. But Council Member Hernandez said, “I don’t think this is the right location for this plant, it’s too small” and there’s not room to expand it in the future.
The facility is expected to increase the average residential water customer’ monthly water bill — charged for 6,000 gallons a month — by $14.16 a month. Average commercial customers who use around 20,000 gallons a month should expect a monthly increase of $47.60. Large-volume users, including industrial facilities such as Valero and LyondellBasell, which each consume an average of around 90 million gallons a month, are expected to pay $214,200 a month more for water.
The City Council also voted Tuesday on water restriction mandates during a Level 1 emergency, which is projected to hit in late 2026 or early 2027, and surcharges customers would have to pay if they exceed their monthly allocation.
All water customers — residents, businesses and industry — would be required to cut water use by 25% under Level 1 rules finalized Tuesday.
Residents’ baseline usage has been set at 8,000 gallons a month. Under an emergency, their allotment would fall to 6,000 gallons a month.
Industrial and wholesale customers such as the cities of Alice, Beeville and Mathis would be required to make 25% reductions based on a three-year average of water use. That amount would also take into account seasonal changes in usage.
Residents would also only be allowed to wash vehicles and boats using 5-gallon buckets or hand-held hoses with a shutoff nozzle. Commercial car washes would be forced to stop operations.
Additional fees would be charged to all types of customers that use more water than allowed, starting with $4 per 1,000 gallons over their allocation and subsequently rising to $8 per 1,000 gallons over their baseline. Federal and state government users, however, would be exempt from these surcharges.
Source: Colleen DeGuzman,
Photo Credit: A community member speaks against desalination during a Corpus Christi City Council meeting on June 2, 2026. Blaine Young for The Texas Tribune
The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.
