Desalination agreement between Corpus Christi council and Port of Corpus Christi rejected

Graphic showing proposed locations of large-scale marine desalination facilities near Corpus Christi and in Nueces and San Patricio counties.
Chase Rogers/Caller-Times

Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Kirsten Crow, Corpus Christi Caller Times
October 15, 2023

How the city moves forward with continued discussions about building a desalination plant to boost the local water supply remains a point of contention.

A split Corpus Christi City Council ultimately voted down a proposed agreement that would have laid out a division of responsibilities between the city and the Port of Corpus Christi.

In a three-page document presented last week, the described arrangement would break down the general costs and responsibilities between the two entities in the pursuit of a desalination plant.

It was broken up into two sections – how to approach pursuing the potential seawater desalination plant on Harbor Island, and separately, “other desalination sites.”

But whether or not such an agreement – known as a memorandum of understanding or MOU – is needed for collaboration has relaunched conversation about the roles each of the entities would play.

Foregoing an MOU like the draft that was presented last week – and ultimately rejected by the council in a 5-4 vote – could represent an opportunity lost, said City Councilman Mike Pusley, one of three who had brought the proposed agreement to the council.

Outlining a partnership with the port in an MOU could represent substantial funding support for desalination projects, he said.

“It’s an opportunity for us to save millions of dollars for taxpayers in this community – because if we build a desal plant it’s going to cost a lot of money,” Pusley said.

No opportunity is being lost, Mayor Paulette Guajardo has countered – and no MOU is needed, she has said, citing resolutions adopted in the spring that in part required the city and port staff to increase communications.

“The City has been working with the Port of Corpus Christi on a weekly basis, which did not require an MOU,” she wrote in a message to the Caller-Times on Friday, adding that the city remains “steadfast in building a sustainable water supply.”

Noting that city personnel and political appointments change over time, it makes sense to have documentation showing “what we were trying to accomplish at that particular time… on what we need to do and what was agreed-upon,” City Councilman Gil Hernandez told the Caller-Times on Thursday.

It was intended as a framework, he said to councilmembers Tuesday, not a legally binding document.

“This whole thing has always been about partnering with another government entity in order to share in the risk, share in the expense… because it benefits both of our organizations,” Hernandez said.

Port commissioners in March approved an MOU similar – but not identical – to the one that came before the council Tuesday.

The council had rejected a similar MOU to the one shown Tuesday, also in March.

Port and city relations

Brokering an MOU has been a years-long conversation as the port and city vied for desalination permits at two sites each.

Historically competitive, the tide has changed since the port and city staff have been meeting regularly and coordinating efforts, some officials have said.

Water supply, several port and city officials have said, is integral to supporting the region’s residential and economic growth.

Charles Zahn Jr., chairman of the port commission, told the Caller-Times that the proposed agreement had been “a path forward” for the port and city working together in securing an additional water source.

 He noted that while the port and the city had been at odds over desalination efforts in the past, an MOU may no longer be necessary.

“I think we’ve established a relationship – at least within the majority of the City Council and the majority of (port) commissioners – to move forward together to try to determine what’s the best way to get an uninterruptable source of water,” Zahn said.

What attorneys said

While supporters of the proposed MOU have contended the agreement was not legally binding, a four-page legal opinion rendered by City Attorney Miles Risley suggested it could be interpreted as a contract, meaning its adoption as submitted could violate city and state guidelines, he wrote.

Provisions in it “could be interpreted by a court as creating binding monetary obligations on the City” but with no specified costs— a situation that could “violate the City Charter’s prohibitions on unappropriated expenditures and the Texas Constitution’s prohibitions on the issuance of debt,” Risley wrote.

“They also might violate the City’s covenants that secure its existing utility revenue bonds,” the opinion states. “In addition to the potentially binding obligations of this proposed MOU, it contains other ambiguities and provisions that would be problematic if contained in a future agreement.”

A series of recommended changes that could potentially make the original document potentially acceptable – to include removal of language, addition of language and various clarifications – were included in the memo.

It’s not clear if the MOU would revisited sometime in the future.

In Guajardo’s message to the Caller-Times, she wrote that it would be irresponsible to revisit the MOU that had come to the council Tuesday, citing Risley’s legal opinion.

Desalination opposition

Although city officials are exploring other alternative sources of water supply, the primary focus has been on seawater desalination. That idea has been debated outside council chambers, with discussions among community members about environmental, economic and cost concerns.

Grassroots organization For the Greater Good – whose members have vocally opposed any desalination operations – issued press statements on the agreement last week.

In part, criticisms included costs associated with construction of a facility – not including maintenance and operations – as “astronomical.”

The focus instead should be on investing in existing infrastructure, the group contends.

“If the city were instead to prioritize repairing its aging water infrastructure, the costs would be far less, and the benefits would offer residents of Corpus Christi assurance that they will not be subject to all too frequent water main breaks that not only are wasteful but put our drinking water at risk,” the release stated.