What do the Port and City know about PFAS in the Inner Harbor?

A coalition of local environmental and neighborhood organizations has issued a formal memorandum to City and Port officials warning of toxic PFAS contamination in Corpus Christi’s Inner Harbor. The groups are calling for independent testing and a pause on the City’s proposed Inner Harbor desalination plant until the risks are understood and mitigated.

The memo notes that water samples recently collected from the Inner Harbor revealed the presence of PFAS – also known as “forever chemicals” – in every sample tested. One sample exceeded the enforceable federal drinking water limit of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The average concentration detected across all samples was 2.8 ppt, raising serious public health and environmental concerns if the desalination facility proceeds as planned. The EPA’s stated goal for PFAS concentration in drinking water is 0 ppt.

According to the memo, reverse osmosis filtration – the technology proposed for the desalination plant – has not been proven effective at removing all PFAS from high-salinity seawater like that found in the Inner Harbor. The groups warn that even if PFAS compounds are successfully removed from treated drinking water, they would be concentrated in the plant’s brine discharge and released back into the harbor, potentially becoming a point source of toxic pollution.

“PFAS compounds like PFOS and PFOA are highly toxic, bioaccumulative chemicals linked to everything from birth defects to cancer, and even trace amounts can be harmful,” said Chloe Torres of Texas Campaign for the Environment. “To allow them into our region’s drinking water, or to concentrate them in the discharge from the proposed Inner Harbor desalination plant, would be beyond unacceptable.”

The memo also highlights the human health risks associated with PFAS bioaccumulation in fish, noting recent studies showing that consuming one serving of contaminated fish can equate to drinking a month’s worth of contaminated water. Based on the PFAS levels observed in the Inner Harbor and bioaccumulation factors observed elsewhere, consuming a single serving of a locally caught contaminated fish could equate to drinking a month’s worth of water containing PFAS at nearly 25 times the EPA’s enforceable limit.

The coalition criticized City management for moving forward with the desalination project despite having been informed of the PFAS test results as early as January 2025. “It’s deeply concerning to learn that this information was given to the City as much as five months ago, but there’s been no public response and no known effort to conduct independent testing,” said Isabel Araiza of For The Greater Good. “Now is the time to acknowledge and address this issue, rather than continuing to push the project ahead without any data or any plan to protect the public.”

The coalition’s memo also notes that PFAS compounds have recently been listed as hazardous substances under the Superfund law and proposed for listing as hazardous waste, raising concerns about whether the City’s permits would allow PFAS discharge, and the costs of managing hazardous waste disposal if required to do so by federal regulators.

In light of these findings, the coalition is calling for a comprehensive, independent study of PFAS contamination in the Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi Bay, and Nueces Bay, including sediment and aquatic life; a full operational plan and risk assessment to ensure that any desalination facility can safely manage PFAS and comply with federal regulations; and a moratorium on desalination plant construction until the study is completed and safety plans are in place.

“There’s no question that the City and Port have a basic obligation to protect the public from PFAS contamination in the Inner Harbor,” added Torres. “But even beyond that, the City has a responsibility to be transparent and accountable about the cost of the Inner Harbor desal facility. Residential water bills are already projected to increase 88% to pay for a plant that is only needed to keep water flowing to heavy industry. How much more is it now going to cost ratepayers to ensure that this plant doesn’t poison our drinking water while it pollutes our bay?”

Neither Port nor City officials have yet responded to the issues raised in the coalition’s memo.