TCE Fund Leadership Recognizes New Staff Union

TCE Fund Joint Statement
By Robin Schneider (Executive Director) and Texas Environmental Workers Union

Texas Campaign for the Environment & Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund envision and work towards a Texas free from pollution. More than thirty years ago, TCE began its efforts to fight pollution by organizing people to stand up for their rights.

Staff, management and board members all strongly believe that working people organizing in community groups, unions and social movements bring about needed change and further the cause of justice.

Recently, TCE & TCE Fund staff initiated the formation of their own union—Texas Environmental Workers Union—affiliated with the Communications Workers of America. Management and the board members were pleased to sign a neutrality and voluntary recognition agreement with the union. On April 6th, a neutral third party confirmed that TEWU-CWA had reached majority support for the union and it has been officially recognized by TCE Fund leadership!


Indigenous Leaders in Texas Target Global Banks to Keep LNG Export Off of Sacred Land at the Port of Brownsville

Houston Chronicle
By Dylan Baddour, Inside Climate News
Original article here

Juan Mancias, chairman of the Carrizo Comecrudo tribe, at the Eli Jackson Cemetery in San Juan, Texas on Feb. 11, 2019. Credit: Marjorie Kamys Cotera for The Texas Tribune

When Juan Mancias was a child, his grandmother told him the story her parents told her, of the place at the Great River’s end. All good things ended up there, she said, carried from the high deserts across 1,000 miles to the sea, where they spilled across a vast delta, teeming with life.

There, Mancias’ grandmother told him, the first woman was born from all the good things that washed down the river. And there, more than 60 years later, developers now want to build two export terminals, one priced at over $15 billion, to sell fracked Texas gas on international markets.

Mancias, chairman of the Carrizo Comecrudo tribe, has spent his last year engaged in a global campaign to thwart the liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities proposed for his people’s sacred site. Supported by the Sierra Club, a coalition of Indigenous leaders and local organizers have traveled Europe lobbying customers and funders that developers need for their buildout in the Rio Grande Valley, a historically marginalized zone along the Mexican border in Texas.

It’s not just a legendary paradise for Mancias’ people, it also holds the remains of an ancient village, Garcia Pasture, dubbed by the World Monuments Funds as “one of America’s premier archaeological sites.”

“When you steal the land, you’re stealing us. And you’re taking away our identity, because you fence it off and you dont allow us into the land where our ancestors are buried, where we remember our ceremonies and rituals,” said Mancias, 68.

Since the fracking boom, developers of Texas shale gas have eyed undeveloped patches along the Gulf Coast for massive terminals to liquify and export the gas on ocean-going tankers.

The campaign has managed for years to thwart financing agreements, dissuade committed customers, cause one terminals’ cancellation and years of delays on the remaining two. The Covid slump in energy prices helped their case. But the war in Ukraine has energized markets again, and empowered projects’ search for funders.

“The situation in Ukraine is the latest attempt by investors to justify LNG export terminals that are unnecessary, uneconomic, and unwanted,” said a new report by the Sierra Club’s Lower Rio Grande Valley Group, released on Tuesday. “Even as banks pledged to align their lending and investment with a low carbon future, they continue to finance fracked gas around the world.”

The International Energy Agency has said that new investments in fossil fuels must end immediately for the world to meet its goals on carbon emissions reductions. According to the new Sierra Club report, the gas pipeline and two export terminals proposed for the Rio Grande delta would produce as much carbon as 40.4 million cars per year.

Two export terminals are currently proposed in adjacent green lots in Cameron County at the Port of Brownsville, which doesn’t currently have a petroleum sector (but has hosted Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starbase since about 2015): Rio Grande LNG, owned by Houston-based NextDecade and priced at $15.6 billion; and Texas LNG, owned by Houston-based Glenfarne Group. Both were initially slated to begin operations next year, but both are still seeking financing to begin construction and remain years away from completion.

NextDecade, owner of Rio Grande LNG, did not respond to a request for comment sent Friday. The company has said the Rio Grande facility would produce “a lower carbon intensive” liquified natural gas through a combination of carbon capture technology, net-zero electricity and “responsibly sourced gas.”

Glenfarne Energy Transition, owner of Texas LNG, said in a statement that the terminal’s “green” design uses electric motor drives and renewable energy instead of gas turbines, which will make it one of the lowest emitting LNG facilities in the world; and that it would create 1,500 construction jobs and 100 permanent full-time positions.

“Texas LNG has demonstrated a commitment to having a positive impact,” the company said. “This is positively recognized and supported by public officials, investors, and banks.”

Three major banks remain behind efforts to develop the Rio Grande delta: Macquarie Capital, Credit Suisse and Société Générale (which this year announced an end to fracked gas investments, but excluded Texas LNG).

“The financial industry is the key pillar of support for the fossil industry,” said Ruth Breech with the Rainforest Action Network, who contributed financial analysis to the new report.

Two banks have backed out in recent years: SMBC Group and BNP Paribas. The Port of Cork in Ireland nixed an agreement to build an import terminal for South Texas gas. One proposed terminal at the Port of Brownsville, Anova, canceled its plans last year. The remaining two are still seeking commitments on funding.

The delay stands out as a major accomplishment for organizers in the Rio Grande Valley, a historically marginalized zone on the nation’s periphery which has long fought against exploitative development.

“This is significant. The only time where we’ve seen this level of movement from financial institutions was at Standing Rock,” said Breech, referring to the withdrawal of funders from the Dakota Access Pipeline following explosive protests from Indigenous communities in 2016. “[Rio Grande Valley organizers’] work has been awesome and truly inspiring to the international community working on finance.”

In order to develop a massive industrial complex like those needed for LNG export, developers assemble financial advisors, often major global banks. Those advisors support the project through planning and permitting, meanwhile assembling other partners to finance construction. Eventually, they sign an FID, or Final Investment Decision, meaning the project is clear to proceed.

In the Valley, the story started around 2015, when Congress lifted the oil export ban. As the South Texas fracking boom matured, hundreds of wells in the Eagle Ford Shale were connected to pipelines designed to transport the gas they produced to coastal terminals.

That’s when Rebekah Hinojosa, a fresh college grad and substitute teacher, started fighting proposals for five terminals to load liquified natural gas onto ocean-going freighters at the Port of Brownsville on the Rio Grande delta.

Hinojosa has great, great, great grandparents buried near the Rio Grande. For all her life she’d been aware of environmental injustice in the Valley. Her grandfather worked at a local pesticide plant where she said workers were doused in chemicals; many died of cancer. The nearby Donna Reservoir is a Superfund site, as is the site of a former Agent Orange plant.

“There’s a history here of big companies coming in and exploiting our community, coming in with the same broken promises of job and money. In reality they just come in to pollute and use our people as cheap labor,” said Hinojosa, 31, Gulf Coast representative for the Sierra Club since 2016. “I was sick of that history over and over again.”

She soon became part of a burgeoning movement, connecting local activists and Indigenous communities with outside supporters like the Sierra Club. In 2015, seaside cities of Laguna Vista, Port Isabel and South Padre Islands passed resolutions against the buildout plans. Two of the five proposed terminals never filed applications with federal regulators.

Still, the remaining three terminals enjoyed statements of support from top local politicians.

“The proposed project will create hundreds of engineering, construction and associated support jobs while generating substantial economic development in South Texas. This is particularly important in Cameron County, which has an unemployment rate of 8.0%,” wrote Rep. Filemon Vela, a Democrat from Brownsville, to the Department of Energy.

In the neighboring district, Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, has co-sponsored legislation advancing LNG export plans and served as co-chair for the LNG Allies’ Transatlantic Energy Dialogue in Washington, D.C.

And Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Houston, has praised plans for the two terminals, saying “There is an energy renaissance occurring in the United States, and Texas is leading the way. These projects will further economic growth.”

Activists from the Rio Grande Valley worked around their elected representatives and embarked on an international campaign to target the projects’ financials.

Delegations traveled to France, Germany and Ireland and lobbied major institutions, with the support of local protesters, to break ties with the Rio Grande projects.

“The decision to go and connect people in Europe and to talk with government leaders in France is so innovative in terms of how to stop facilities that want to build in Texas,” said Robin Schneider, the Austin-based director of Texas Campaign for the Environment. “It’s really been an inspiration.”

In 2017, Hinojosa and Mancias went to Paris, where they appeared on local radio shows, led protests and spoke at a shareholder meeting of PNB Paribas Bank, a financial advisor for Texas LNG. Several months later, the bank withdrew and updated its investment policy to exclude shale gas projects.

In December 2019, a group went to Ireland, where the Port of Cork had signed an agreement to build an import terminal to import South Texas gas. The same day local groups demonstrated nearby, Hinojosa met the port commission to make a case for them to end the deal.

She told them about her college years at the University of North Texas in Denton after 2010, when the fracking boom at the Barnett Shale brought loud, fuming wells on land adjacent to a hospital, football stadium and park, which Texas had prohibited the community from banning in their city.

She showed them a previous edition of her Sierra Club report, explaining that proposed projects would develop wild wetlands and destroy sacred Indigenous sites. A few months later, the Port of Cork withdrew its agreements.

Last year, a group of Carrizo Comecrudo tribal members went to Germany to lead protests against five import terminals planned near Hamburg, which would provide a crucial market for South Texas exports.

“No company ever talked to our tribe about the LNG terminals they plan to build on our territories,” Christopher Basaldú, a member of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, told activists in Germany. “They’re destroying the water and wildlife, all for European consumption.”

For the Carrizo Comecrudo, this international campaign is part of an effort to save their lands that goes back centuries. Mancias, the tribal chairman, said many of the group’s old village sites, sacred spots where their ancestors lived, have been covered up by urban and agricultural sprawl.

“We’ve been traumatized for 500 years. First by the Spaniards, then by the Mexicans, then by the Texans, then the Americans,” Mancias said. “Five hundred years later they are still exporting the resources from this land. And they are making the laws, they are making the rules.”

People often tell him to move on and forget the past, to give up his people’s arcane claim to the sacred spaces of a bygone era. But that would mean forgetting his grandmother, born in the 1890s, who told him the stories of places in their people’s world.

These places are the source of his identity, he said. But the developers who want it never care.

“We are the people of this land not because we own it, because it owns us,” Mancias said. “We’re gonna die and we can’t take the land with us. We become the land. The land takes us.”


The Corpus Christi Water Wars

Rolling Stone
By Reed Dunlea
Original article here

The Exxon SABIC plant, which is nearing completion, is set to be the biggest ethane steam cracker plant in the world. It will require 20 million gallons of water a day to operate. Photo by Rahim Fortune for Rolling Stone

A skyline of smokestacks appears on the horizon before the rest of Corpus Christi does. Approaching Texas’ “Sparkling City by the Sea” on I-37, a palm-tree-lined highway running from San Antonio to the Gulf Coast, it’s tough to tell where the billowing exhaust from oil refineries ends and the rain clouds begin. Massive storage domes, tangles of pipes, and burning flares reach into the sky, and a potpourri of gasoline, sulfur, and unidentified chemical-burning smells fill the air.

In Texas, it’s normal to see an oil refinery or a petrochemical plant as big as a football stadium, with another one behind it, and another one behind that. And it’s just as normal to see a neighborhood in the shadows of those massive polluters.

“It’s kind of a surreal landscape,” says Kathryn Masten, who retired with her husband to the Corpus Christi area in 2017, and is executive director of Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association. “We’re surrounded by these monstrosities. Just smoke stacks and flaring and construction.”

To Corpus locals, it’s a way of life. Industry means work — a third of jobs in the Corpus Christi area are in energy and manufacturing. Since the 1930s and the Texas oil gusher age, most of Corpus’ industry has been concentrated in refinery row, a 10-mile strip of facilities butting up against the edge of Corpus Christi Bay. But since the rise of fracking and the 2015 lift of the ban on crude-oil exports, industry has been sprawling beyond refinery row and into surrounding communities, transforming farmland and quiet seaside towns in ways that residents there never bargained for. “The whole landscape has changed,” says Chip Harmon, a professional fishing guide who has worked in Corpus for decades. “And I’m not talking about over the last 45 years, which it has, by hurricanes and stuff. I’m talking about in the last three years, dude.”

The fracking boom that rocked American economics and politics over the past decade has been accompanied by a plastics and petrochemicals boom. As the long-term prospects of fossil fuels are looking increasingly unstable in the face of worldwide efforts to decarbonize the economy and stave off catastrophic climate change, companies like Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others have all doubled down on the waste gases of fracking and the global demand for plastics as a source of continued revenue.

Corpus Christi sits in the crosshairs. Sitting on a major Gulf port, with a growing pipeline and rail system, in an “ozone attainment area” (where it’s cheaper to build because air-pollution regulations are easier to meet than in bigger industry cities that have smog problems, like Houston), the region is perfectly situated to host the industry’s creeping expansion.

Just in the past few years, a host of new projects has been built in towns around the bay. In 2018, Cheniere opened a $15 billion, 1,000-acre liquified-natural-gas export facility in Gregory. In 2019, Moda Midstream converted a 900-acre former naval base and crude-oil-storage facility in Ingleside into a major hub for crude-oil exports. In 2017, Koch Industries expanded its crude export terminal in Ingleside so it could route oil from its Flint Hills Resources refinery to Mexico. Occidental and Mexichem opened a $1.5 billion plastics plant in Ingleside in 2017.

But a broad coalition of scrappy community organizations from all around the bay have come together to try to stop the excessive industrial buildout. In 2018, several of them banded together to form an umbrella group known as the Coastal Alliance to Protect Our Environment, or CAPE. “We’re trying to counter the narrative that these [industries] are good for the Coastal Bend,” says Errol Summerlin, who founded Portland Citizens United, which is part of CAPE. Other members include Port Aransas Conservancy, San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, and Del Mar College Green Team, as well as bigger statewide and national groups like Earthworks and Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Another member group is Indigenous People of the Coastal Bend, co-founded by 38-year-old Love Sanchez, a single mom of two boys who grew up in Corpus Christi. Sanchez is part of the Karankawa tribe, but her organization also represents Lipan Apache and Mexica members. Sanchez points to “the seventh generation” prophecy, that a time would come when indigenous people from many tribes would come together under a common cause. She sees their struggle as part of others around the U.S., like the Dakota Access pipeline protests at Standing Rock.

Love Sanchez, a founding member of the Indigenous People of the Coastal Bend. Photo by Rahim Fortune for Rolling Stone

“We are a part of the prophecy that the ancestors had so long ago, that there would be a generation of our people who would come back together. I can’t believe I’m a part of it,” says Sanchez, holding back tears.

The members of CAPE were first galvanized to join forces amid the development of a petrochemical facility the likes of which the area has never seen. In the North Bay, smack between the tiny cities of Gregory and Portland, ExxonMobil and Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), under the local banner of Gulf Coast Growth Ventures, is nearing completion on what will be the largest ethane steam cracker plant in the world. The $10 billion plant will turn ethane, an odorless, colorless gas that is a byproduct of fracking, into monoethylene glycol (used to make things like polyester clothing and antifreeze), and polyethylene, a building block of plastics. According to the plant’s air-quality permit, it will also pump about 3 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.

The ethane will be morphed into billions of “nurdles,” or small plastic pellets. Smaller than a black eyed pea, the nurdles will likely be exported to Asia, melted down into resin, and molded into anything from single-use plastic cups to construction materials. Essentially, the plant will monetize the waste of one unsustainable energy process by building another unsustainable product, much of which will be used once before ending up in a landfill or an ocean.

But the residents living in the shadow of the massive plant will face other dangers. “This is a very dirty manufacturing process,” says Neil Carman, the clean-air director at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Carman was also an inspector for 12 years with the state air-quality regulator that preceded the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the agency that granted Exxon SABIC the permits to build the facility. “The people living in the community are going to be exposed to a toxic soup of carcinogens, mutagens that change the DNA, teratogens that cause birth defects and many, many other health effects,” he says. “The people in the area are going to be guinea pigs. It’s a sacrifice zone.”

Volatile organic compounds, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfide, sulfuric acid mist, and sulfur dioxide will all be released into the air, according to Exxon SABIC’s air quality permit. But TCEQ says that they conducted a review of the possible health impacts on people living nearby and on sensitive subgroups such as children or the elderly and that they expect no adverse short-term or long-term effects. “These concentrations were evaluated against guidelines established by toxicologists that assure no expected health impacts and, where concentrations were higher than the guidelines, toxicologists reviewed the potential impacts to confirm no adverse effects would be expected,” TCEQ says.

A spokesperson for Exxon SABIC, aka Gulf Coast Growth Ventures, touts TCEQ’s approval as proof that the project meets health and safety standards and adds that the company has installed community air monitors at two Gregory-Portland Independent School District locations, the results of which will be viewable by the public online.

But the opponents of the plant don’t believe Exxon SABIC is prioritizing public health. “Whatever risks the folks who live nearby and downwind of this plant, whatever the risk that people have from all the other factors out there, this plant increases their risk of cancers,” says Ilan Levin, associate director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which worked with CAPE and fought at the state level for stronger environmental protections at the Exxon SABIC plant. They didn’t have much success, “because the state pretty much rubber stamped the permit,” Levin says.

In Texas, industry will generally get the permitting it’s looking for, says Carman. “I’m still shocked to this day with what these companies get away with,” he says. “[The TCEQ is] there to basically issue permits, and to hell with the public and to hell with public health.”

While behemoths like Exxon SABIC are in a strong position to push their projects through, the local activists think they may have found a weakness in the industry’s plans. The Exxon SABIC plant itself is set to be completed this year, but there are still many pieces that need to come together for it to be operational: It’s own rail corridor, pipelines, port expansion — and a reliable water supply, which, in drought-prone South Texas may be harder than it sounds.

“It speaks to both the numerous links in the chain that these companies have to connect properly to get facilities operating, and it speaks to the ultimate vulnerability of installations like this,” says Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law. “The system that they’re facing is engineered to push projects like this through regardless of what affected communities think about it. But we have seen over and over again that affected communities can, and do, fight back very, very effectively.”

Errol Summerlin stands on a long, straight paved road in Portland that leads directly to the main entrance of the Exxon SABIC site. Two rows of neat brick homes sitting on spacious lots line each side, and a white-painted plywood sign reads, “COME BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME.” Massive cubes of piping, flanked by cylindrical towers and cranes, tower over the community.

Errol Summerlin, a retired Legal Aid attorney, lives a few miles from the Exxon SABIC plant. Photo by Rahim Fortune for Rolling Stone

“Portland was a sleepy town. It used to be, you know, horse and buggy,” says Summerlin, 69, who lives about two miles from here. A retired Legal Aid attorney with a history of standing up to industry, Summerlin spent the early part of his career representing Native American tribes in Oklahoma and North Dakota, before diving into legal work in the Corpus Christi area, notably representing residents facing displacement in the historic black neighborhoods of Hillcrest and Washington-Coles.

Black and brown communities have bore the brunt of industry pollution in Corpus Christi for generations. Hillcrest and Washington-Coles experienced waves of rezoning and creeping industrialization that came to a head in the 1960s, as the construction of I-37 meant the neighborhoods were squeezed between a highway and refinery row, physically closed off from the rest of the city.

There are about 1,000 people living within a mile of the Exxon SABIC site, mostly in Gregory, where 93 percent of residents are minorities and 34 percent are low-income. Resident Carlos Garcia says he can see the tops of smokestacks at the Exxon SABIC site a half mile down the road from his home. “I understand people gotta work,” says Garcia, who spent his career building oil refineries in Texas. “If you’re a family man and you have a family you have to feed, you’ll do anything.” But he says he’s concerned that the allure of jobs have prevented people from thinking about the long-term. “Those construction jobs, they go away. And now you’re left with the environmental impact,” he says. “Some people around here see [the project] as a good thing. But they see the now, they don’t see the after.”

The Exxon SABIC plant initially was promised to create 11,000 construction jobs (and 600 permanent jobs once the site is built), but much of the plant ended up being built modularly off-site. The number of construction jobs was reduced to 6,000, and permanent jobs were reportedly reduced to 400.

To fight the plant, the member groups of CAPE have staged protests, testified at TCEQ’s public hearings, challenged tax abatements, challenged air permits, challenged water permits. You name it. Each time, they’ve lost.

But a key remaining avenue to challenge the Exxon SABIC plant is how it will get its water. The facility will need a whopping 20 million gallons of fresh water a day to operate. Corpus Christi’s current reservoirs at Lake Corpus Christi, Lake Texana, Choke Canyon Reservoir, and the Colorado River are almost pushed to the breaking point as it is, and the region has been in stage 1 drought since December.

“Our best resource is our sparkling bay here,” says Patrick Nye, president of Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association. “I think people are surprised that they may lose that opportunity to preserve it.” Photo by Rahim Fortune for Rolling Stone

The city of Corpus Christi manages the water supply for seven counties, and about 500,000 residents. In 2017, Corpus’s then-city manager sent a letter to Exxon SABIC stating that “we feel that we have sufficient water supplies to meet your needs today and into the foreseeable future.” But according to Amber Oetting, strategic communications director at the City of Corpus Christi’s Water Utilities, the city’s water supply needs to be expanded by next year to meet the region’s needs. In 2022, she says, the city anticipates that “population trends, historical water use, and economic growth to our region” will surpass the demand for 75 percent of its current water supply, thus hitting a “trigger point” in which they will need new water sources to keep up.

“The Coastal Bend is uniquely situated where traditional, affordable and quality drinking water is not found in copious supply,” says Oetting. “Further, our region statistically battles persistent and recurring droughts. These factors, coupled with our continued growth, are what make the matter time sensitive. The city can meet the water needs we have been tasked with today, but time is of the essence.”

Currently, the city of Corpus Christi supplies 95 million gallons of water per day to the region. Exxon SABIC’s needs, at 20 million gallons per day — roughly equivalent to what 120,000 residents use — would represent a 21 percent increase for the entire system.

To increase the regional water supply, the city is applying for permits for two desalination plants, one in the Inner Harbor and one in the La Quinta Channel. The plants would suck up ocean water from Corpus Christi Bay, remove the salt, and discharge the brine back into the bay. Combined, they would use up to 250 million gallons of seawater a day, and discharge up to 130 million gallons of brine a day. Plus, there are four more permits from other industrial facilities that have been submitted, for a total of six potential desalination plants in the Corpus Christi Bay — which could have a huge ecological impact.

“Our best resource is our beautiful bay here,” says Patrick Nye, president of the Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association, a member organization of CAPE. “If you grew up around it, you know it’s a sparkling gem. There’s a lot of great fishing and seafood that comes out of it. I think people are surprised that they may lose that opportunity to preserve it.”

Chip Harmon owns a bait and tackle shop adjacent to the only public boat ramp in Ingleside on the Bay. And while he supports the advancement of industry in the area, he says, there’s a limit. “South Texas don’t believe in climate change, and I personally think that climate change is hogwash,” he says. “But what I do believe in is protection of our God-given natural resources.”

Harmon says the fish he’s used to catching in the area, like trout and redfish, are already changing in size and behavior due to the increased ship traffic. “They’re working harder to chase the forage,” he says.

Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association is starting to work with Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi to monitor seagrasses, marine life, and air pollution in the area.

“Extremes of salinity, as well as very rapid changes of salinity, can cause stress on seagrasses,” says Kirk Cammarata, a biologist at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. “Seagrasses are at the base of the food chain, and pretty much all of the seafood we eat at some point depends on what happens in seagrass beds. It’s a critically important habitat.”

Larry McKinney, chair of Gulf Strategies at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico, believes that desalination can be an inherently beneficial process for the environment by providing fresh water to ecosystems that can benefit from decreased salinity. But he says that the locations of the proposed desalination plants in the Corpus Christi Bay are far from that.

The bay and its surrounding inlets and channels, like Nueces Bay and Aransas Pass, do not circulate much water. This is common to most bays on the Texas coast, which have minimal inflows from other water sources. “If that water is not moving and exchanging with other fresh water and other sea water, you’re just constantly adding very incremental, small amounts of salinity to that bay,” says McKinney of the potential discharge from desalination plants. “That begins to have all kinds of ecological effects on oysters and shrimp and fish, and the whole structure of the ecosystem.”

According to McKinney, a solution could be to move the proposed desalination plants offshore, where dumping the salty brine into the open ocean would have a negligible impact compared to doing the same thing in a more closed ecosystem like a bay. But that would be more expensive, because it would mean adding a pipeline to the desalination plant. If the two new desalination plants are not issued permits by the TCEQ, says Oetting, the city would then look at other desalination plant locations, and then groundwater, and then reusing or recovering water as options to meet the new needs. But as Oetting says, “time is of the essence.” The city is reaching its “trigger point” next year, and the desalination plants would take till 2026 to be built.

In February, CAPE got the first indication that the desalination plants weren’t a sure thing. The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings recommended to the state TCEQ that it deny the Port of Corpus Christi’s draft permit for its proposed Harbor Island desalination plant, stating that “the proposed discharge will adversely impact the marine environment, aquatic life, and wildlife” of the local environment.

The TCEQ still needs to make a final decision, but according to Rick Lowerre, an attorney with Perales, Allmon, & Ice, who represents the opponents of the desalination plant, it would be unlikely that the state would act against this recommendation. If the permit is ultimately denied, it could have a domino effect on the other plants’ permitting applications.

“[The desalination plants] all have a really uphill fight because we have all these experts that have been studying these systems, and they understand that both the intakes and the discharges will have major impacts,” says Lowerre. Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association has hired Lowerre’s firm, and intends to challenge the permits for all the proposed desalination plants in Corpus Christi Bay.

According to Lowerre, even if they lose any of their challenges through the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings, the permitting process could still end up taking years. “What the city and the port have to recognize is even if they get their permits, the opponents can appeal to the district court and above,” says Lowerre.

“Desalination plants are like the chokehold of all the industry,” says Sanchez. “Just like The Art of War, if you cut off the supplies, the enemy can’t move forward. And that’s their supply. The water is their supply.”

But others are not so optimistic.

Masten, from Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association, found the industrial sprawl to be too overwhelming. “I’ve got asthma and with the diesel fumes, I can’t sit out on my front porch because I can’t breathe. It goes right to my lungs and to my head. When the particulates are out, I just get a headache right away,” she says. She and her husband are moving to the Chesapeake Bay instead. “It’s too scary for us. This is not what we wanted.”

“Exxon’s gonna get their water,” says Summerlin. “We don’t have any hopes on Exxon. They’re here. We know they’re not going to go away. The margin of profit on plastics is so great that Exxon will proceed with their operations. What we’re going to have to do at this point is just make certain we don’t get any more of those industries here.”

Currently, CAPE is challenging permitting for a number of expansions, including from Lone Star Ports, Axis Midstream, Bluewater, MODA Midstream, and Steel Dynamics. Last November, for unknown reasons, a major plastics facility referred to as “Project Falcon” withdrew its plans to build in Aransas Pass. CAPE hopes to make development difficult enough for industry that more companies will decide to pull out.

Melissa Zamora and Love Sanchez of Indigenous People of the Coastal Bend. Photo by Rahim Fortune for Rolling Stone

“The more [industry] that comes in, the more damage there is done and the more encroachment on not only communities, but on the estuaries and on the wildlife,” says Summerlin. “The entire ecosystem is being threatened by all of this.”

“We’re not going to sit down without a fight,” says Sanchez. “We’re caretakers of this land. You have to take care of the land and water or in 50 years it’s gonna be gone.”


South Texas’ Indigenous tribes seek to block Moda Midstream’s terminal expansion

Corpus Christi Caller-Times
By Kathryn Cargo
Original article here

Moda Midstream’s plans to expand its crude oil export terminal in Ingleside could disturb a site sacred to the Indigenous Karankawa and other tribes in the Coastal Bend, a Corpus Christi-based inter-tribal nonprofit organization says in a letter to federal regulators.

The terminal is located at the confluence of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Ship Channel at near Ingleside on the Bay. The Moda Ingleside Energy Center sits on more than 900 acres of land that will allow for future expansion.

“Moda wants to expand their oil export terminal and they are already violating the bluff where our artifacts and human remains have been found,” said Love Sanchez, Karankawa of the nonprofit intertribal group, Indigenous People of the Coastal Bend. “This was a campsite of the Karankawa people and must be preserved from this polluting facility.”

The Environmental Integrity Project sent a letter Wednesday to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting the agency to enforce the Clean Air Act protections against the expansion. The EIP did so on behalf of the Indigenous People of the Coastal Bend.

They say the proposed project would violate the act by generating air pollution.

Moda is investing $300 million to $500 million to make the center at 1450 Lexington Blvd. in Ingleside a “key energy hub” for crude oil by accommodating Very Large Crude Carriers. VLCCs are about 1,100 feet long — roughly the length of three football fields — and 200 feet wide, and can carry up to 2 million barrels of crude oil.

The local Indigenous group also says the expansion would increase “deadly” pollution, including hydrogen sulfides/sulfur dioxide. The pollution would impact communities of Ingleside on the Bay, Ingleside. It would also affect a Corpus Christi area with Indigenous, Black, and low-income communities.

According to a group news release, the compounds that Moda proposes to increase are dangerous to human health causing asthma, bronchitis, cardio-pulmonary obstructive disorder, heart disease, strokes, and cancer.

“Moda is already endangering life on the bay – both people’s lives and wildlife,” said Melissa Zamora, Mexika/Coahuiltecan with the group.

Moda’s existing storage capacity at its Ingleside terminal is about 2.1 million barrels, with work underway to construct an additional 10 million barrels of storage through additional tanks.

The future expansion would allow from “basin to berth” deliveries of crude from the Cactus II Pipeline, Gray Oak Pipeline and EPIC Crude Oil Pipeline. The company already receives oil from the Cactus I pipeline used to transport sweet crude from the Permian Basin.

Last week, the Sierra Club also sent a request on behalf of the group to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, opposing the expansion.

Next week, a coalition of Gulf Coast organizations plan to ask Biden Administration officials to stop all proposed crude oil export terminals on the Gulf Coast.


Environmentalists push back on Phillips 66’s offshore crude oil plant

Corpus Christi Caller-Times

Environmental groups say they will fight Phillips 66’s plans to build a Bluewater crude oil export terminal off the coast of Port Aransas.

The Coastal Bend Sierra Club and other groups are asking the EPA to give the public more time to speak out on the proposed Bluewater Texas Terminals’ offshore deepwater port.

Critics say the project is environmentally risky and has the potential to disrupt fishing and birding, both popular activities that draw thousands of tourists to the region each year.

“The environmental and safety threats to our coastal community by projects like Bluewater are quite real,” said Kathryn Masten, executive director of the Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association.

Last week, the Port Authority approved a lease agreement and pipeline easement for the project, a joint venture of Houston-based Phillips 66 and Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd., a Dutch company.

The project will consist of two single-point mooring buoys stationed offshore.

There, Very Large Crude Carriers, or VLCCs, and other vessels will be able to load Permian and Eagle Ford shale crude oil that will be fed to it through a series of pipelines.

The project still requires an air permit, and is subject to a final investment decision by the two companies.

Corpus Christi’s port, the nation’s third largest based on its cargo tonnage, has long been a focal player in the transportation of crude oil and other petrochemicals. Its role has become even more pronounced and important since the December 2015 repeal of the decades-old ban on crude oil exports.

“This one export facility would put out more smog-causing pollution than 28 major refineries in Texas. Some of these are cancer-causing chemicals such as highly toxic benzene,” said Robin Schneider, executive director of Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Rich Johnson, a spokesman for Phillips 66 Midstream, said the terminal would create jobs and strengthen the local economy.

Company officials performed extensive surveys to minimize impacts to the environment, Johnson said. Air modeling and other studies were performed as part of the permitting process, and they showed the project wouldn’t impair air quality and public health.

It also would reduce the need for offshore reverse lightering — the process of transferring cargo from one vessel to another.

“Loading crude at a deepwater port is a safer, more efficient alternative to reverse lightering while also reducing nearshore ship traffic and inshore port congestion,” Johnson said.

SHIP AND BARGE ACTIVITY

Year No. of vessels

2020* 5,238
2019 6,874
2018 6,467
2017 6,482

* Traffic from January to September 2020

TONNAGE OF COMMODITIES

Year Tonnage

2020* 117,5448,298
2019 122,170,429
2018 106,237,407
2017 102,391,848

* Tonnage from January to September 2020


Dallas Apartment Recycling Law Takes Effect

NBC News DFW
By Ken Kalthoff
Original article and video here

A 2018 law that requires landlords to make trash recycling available for tenants of apartments with eight units or more took effect Wednesday.

More than half of Dallas residents live in rental apartments, so the law affects most of the population and a large volume of Dallas trash.

Kevin Richardson with the Texas Campaign for the Environment said he is concerned that the law his group helped pass will not be enforced.

“The new apartment recycling rule is a major step toward universal recycling in the city of Dallas, however, we want to make sure residents know who to contact if their apartment complex is not providing a recycling program in compliance with the law,” Richardson said.

Tenants can call 311 or use the Dallas 311 app to file a complaint for enforcement.

Dallas adopted a goal of “Zero Waste” in 2013 to reduce the cost of dumping trash in a landfill and improve the environment.

“In order to achieve Zero Waste, we have to have good recycling policies and we have to have good production policies so we don’t produce things that are designed to become waste,” said Richardson.

For years, Dallas recycling has been available for residents of single-family homes and many apartment complexes offered it voluntarily.

As of January 1, landlords are required to provide a recycling program and inform tenants about it.

“They’ve never talked to me about it, never,” said Jesus Mendez, a Northwest Dallas apartment tenant. “It would be good for everybody, yea, for the environment.”

Richardson said large commercial buildings and businesses are another large source of recyclable waste but the City of Dallas has not adopted rules for commercial property recycling.

Most other large Texas cities adopted apartment recycling years ago. Fort Worth did so in 2014.


Opponents say planned ExxonMobil plastics plant would devastate Gulf Coast environment

Corpus Christi Caller-Times
By John C. Moritz
Original article here

Kevan Drake of the Texas Campaign for the Environment protests the plastics manufacturing plant planned for San Patrico County, Texas, while in Austin, Jan. 24, 2019. (Photo: John C. Moritz/USA Today Network)

AUSTIN — A proposed plastics manufacturing facility in San Patricio County promising to bring up to 6,000 high-paying jobs and pump as much as $90 billion into the Coastal Bend economy would be an environmental nightmare and fall short of its economic forecasts, according to environmental groups.

“They chose to locate where the complex and all of its operational components will have a devastating impact on our environment and public health,” said Errol Summerlin of the Coastal Alliance to Protect Our Environment at a Thursday news conference near the state Capitol.

Summerlin, a retired lawyer, said he lives about a mile-and-a-half from the proposed site. He and others opposing the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures, a partnership between ExxonMobil Chemical Co. and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. to build the word’s largest plastics plant, are urging the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to reject permit applications.

Thursday’s press conference coincided with the first day of a contested case hearing in Austin that will determine whether the TCEQ issues the permits Gulf Coast Growth Ventures needs to begin construction.

According to Gulf Coast Growth’s website, the manufacturing operation would be what’s called an “ethane cracker” and would provide several compounds to produce products like polyester for clothes-making and the plastics used for beverage bottles. The company said it is committed to ensuring the plant would be safe for both its workers and the surrounding community, which is already home to several refineries and other petrochemical industries

“The health and safety of our employees and the community go hand in hand,” the website says. “Many project employees and their families will live in the communities where we operate our facilities, and their goal every day is to work safely, go home safely to their families and make sure their coworkers go home safely too.”

Gulf Coast Growth Ventures said once construction starts and then ramps up, as many as 6,000 construction jobs would open up. Once manufacturing starts, the company “expects to create over 600 new permanent jobs with good salaries and benefits.”

The company has also set up a job application page on its website. The planned site on 1,300 acres near Gregory sits in the part of the Coastal Bend with the region’s highest jobless rates.

But the opponents at Thursday’s news conference organized by the Texas Campaign for the Environment said they were skeptical. Early projections, they said, forecast the creation of about twice that many jobs. However, it was later learned that many of those would actually be off-shore because the products would be exported for manufacturing plants overseas.

They also warned of emissions and plastic waste that would be left behind in the environmentally sensitive coastal region. And that could undermine the economic benefits of recreation and tourism in the region, said Robin Schneider, executive director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment

“There is also the existing economy in terms of fishing — commercial and recreational — the birding, the tourist economy that could be endangered by the build-out of this plant and others that are on the drawing board for the region,” she said.

Dewey Magee protests the plastics manufacturing plant planned for San Patrico County, Texas, while in Austin, Jan. 24, 2019. (Photo: John C. Moritz/USA Today Network)

Gulf Coast Growth has an application pending before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which will decide if the plant would comply with sundry state and federal regulations. The permitting process is already about a year-and-a-half in the making and could still be several months away from final resolution.

Even though permit applications are pending, construction work is under way at the site near Farm-to-Market Road 2986 and U.S. Highway 181 in San Patricio County.

“They said they would only be doing dirt work until the permits are completed, but there are buildings and infrastructure being erected all around us,” said Dewey Magee,a retiree-turned-metal artist who lives about a half-mile from the site. “Everything they have said has been skewed. It is no wonder we have trouble trusting them.”


Neighbors gear up to oppose Austin Community Landfill expansion

KXAN News Austin
By Alyssa Goard
Original article here

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Wednesday, people living in Northeast Austin and Travis County gathered at Barr Mansion to align their vision for stopping an expansion of the Austin Community Landfill. Residents nearby have complained of strong smells from the landfill, as well as buzzards circling and large feral hogs running around. But more recently, they have started to mobilize with concern about the long-term health and environmental impacts of the contents at the landfill.

The Austin Community Landfill (ACL) is in Northeast Travis County off of Highway 290 and has been used as a landfill since around 1970. The site has been owned by a company called Waste Management since the 1980s. It’s no secret that Waste Management is looking to expand the ACL landfill, they estimate there is enough space left currently to last for another six to eight years.

Colleen Mikeska, a resident of the nearby Colonial Place neighborhood, planned to attend the meeting Wednesday. Mikeska moved into the neighborhood a year and a half ago, she grew up in Austin and chose to move there because it was one of the last “affordable-ish” neighborhoods she could find.

Mikeska knew the landfill was there when she moved and even said her son was entertained by the buzzards flying overhead, but she grew concerned in the fall of 2018 when she learned of the possibility that the landfill might expand. She grew even more worried when she learned about the history of what had been disposed of there.

“Every once in a while it smells really bad, a lot of the time it doesn’t, but sometimes it does, and it seems to have gotten more frequent in the last six months,” she said.

A consulting report from 2003 shows that Industrial Waste Materials Management was allowed to dispose of liquid and drums of waste at ACL in the 1970’s, materials which would be considered hazardous by current standards. The consulting report calculated that more than 19,000 tons of industrial/ hazardous waste were disposed of by IWMM in unlined pits at ACL.

“It doesn’t take a scientist to know it’s not healthy to be surrounded by toxic chemicals all the time,” Mikeska said. She wonders if the contents of the landfill could have long-term consequences for her or her family.

Mikeska learned about the efforts to expand the landfill through the Texas Campaign for the Environment, a non-profit which works on health and environmental issues. Andrew Dobbs, the program director for the Texas Campaign for the Environment, said his organization has been looking into health and environmental concerns tied to this landfill for more than a decade.

Photo: Alyssa Goard

“Most of what we have can stay out of the landfills if we compost and recycle, reuse the way that we know we can and should, there’s no reason why facilities like this should continue,” he said of the ACL landfill.

Dobbs is also worried by a new city policy which shifts the way the city selects landfills to work with. “We believe the setup would score [the ACL landfill] better than other facilities.”

His organization has been involved with neighborhood groups to oppose the landfill expansion. Dobbs said the goal is to stop Waste Management from getting an expansion permit from the state, then to make a remediation plan for the pollution on site.

“There are thousands and thousands of hazardous industrial waste on-site underground there, and this is something that we’re going to have to clean up sooner or later, we’re hoping that it will be sooner,” he said.

Back in 1982, Tom Clark with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called the landfill Austin’s Love Canal, comparing the industrial waste site at the ACL to the landfill in a Niagra Falls neighborhood where hazardous waste led to a pollution and health disaster.

Waste Management

Lisa Doughty, a spokesperson for Waste Management in Texas, explained that her company is in the early stages of researching for the expansion, a process which they expect to take three to five years.

When asked if Waste Management would want to have more of the city of Austin’s waste directed there, she said, “we’re always happy to service the community.”

She added that Waste Management has processes in place to address odors at the ACL landfill, including driving the area several times a day, monitoring wind direction through their weather station and covering smelly loads right away with dirt. Additionally, Waste management has stopped taking the more “odorous loads” to the ACL landfill including sludges, she said.

She also noted that the landfill is highly regulated and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The City of Austin’s use of the landfill

“No one wants a landfill in their backyard it’s understandable,” said Richard McHale is the assistant director for Austin Resource Recovery, the branch of the city of Austin focused on collecting and finding ways to reuse waste.

“The issue with the Austin Community Landfill, initially when it was sited there was nothing around it, and as Austin has grown the population has encroached on it,” McHale continued, “and that’s when we started seeing issues with landfills and land use nearby.”

He explained that the city of Austin uses two landfills. The majority of the city’s waste goes to the Creedmoor Landfill south of Austin, including residential, curbside trash. McHale said only waste from city facilities and a small residential dumpster contract the city maintains is sent to ACL, a much smaller percentage of the city’s waste.

“That landfill had a separate industrial waste unit,” he said. “But all landfills have accepted some sort of hazardous waste in the waste that they collect, so as far as we’re concerned.[hazardous waste at ACL] is something we’re concerned about, but its something all landfills have to reckon with.”

He added that Austin has had “no issues” in the past with the health or safety standards at the ACL landfill.

“We’ve looked into issues that have been brought up, we’ve contacted EPA about any issues with us having liability and they’ve told us there’s no issue at this point,” McHale said.

McHale explained that there’s been a recent change to Austin Resource Recovery’s “matrix” or method for prioritizing which landfills it sends waste too. Under this new change, he said it’s possible that the city could send more waste to the ACL landfill, but it’s also possible the city could send less. That would depend on the contracts that come up for approval through the city council, he said. Additionally, he said the landfill matrix is a new tool and it’s likely there will be some changes in the future.

McHale said he understands why residents might have concerns about the landfill, “especially if it’s expanding in that area, so we would just tell them to contact their council member and whenever contracts come up, they might use that contract to voice their concerns.”

KXAN told McHale about some of the worries residents near ACL landfill have expressed.

“If those issues are occurring, we encourage folks to contact the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to make complaints with them,” he said. McHale added that the state regulates permitting and expansion for landfills like ACL.

Back in the Colonial Place neighborhood, Mikeska said she is concerned both about the potential landfill expansion and in the change of the city’s “matrix” for landfills. “The city needs to do something to make sure the area is safe for people who live there– whether it’s them or the waste management company [making the change].”

“We need to be working towards zero waste, not just expanding a huge dump,” Mikeska added.

She plans to keep speaking up, and said many of her neighbors will too.


Op-Ed: This new coastal alliance aims to protect South Texas’ natural gifts

Op-Ed for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times
By Errol Summerlin

Photo: Rachel Denny Clow, Corpus Christi Caller-Times

The Coastal Bend of Texas is one of the premier places to live and recreate in Texas. With miles of beaches, pristine waters teeming with aquatic life, areas designated by the EPA as essential fish habitats, and home to more than 400 resident and migratory bird populations including threatened and endangered species like the whooping crane, the Coastal Bend attracts new residents and visitors from all around the world.

The quality of life in the Coastal Bend now faces its greatest challenge. It has been targeted as fertile ground for an industrial build-out that will impact the entire region. The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, Regional Economic Development Corporations (EDCs), and industry are engaged in an unprecedented expansion that includes the construction of massive new industrial and maritime complexes, dredging deep channels in the bay, and building seawater desalination facilities to accommodate industry’s thirst for freshwater as the amount of water required by the petrochemical industry to operate is staggering.

Emitting millions of tons of greenhouse gases and thousands of tons of harmful contaminants into our air, these new industries threaten the health of residents, particularly the elderly and children. Billions of gallons of contaminated industrial wastewater will be discharged into our waterways.

This rapid, unfettered, and reckless activity will have an unprecedented impact on the delicate ecosystems in the Coastal Bend area of Texas. It ignores the combined effects of these efforts on the quality of the air we breathe, the impacts of deep channel dredging and brine plumes on our wetlands, estuaries and bays, and the proliferation of plastic pellets that will have killing effects on our birds and aquatic life.

The danger of this massive expansion to our environment is not receiving the attention it deserves. Many have bought in without understanding the collective consequences to the quality of life we have known for so long.

To meet this challenge and protect our environment, a number of individuals, grass roots initiatives and local chapters of state and national organizations have come together to form the Coastal Alliance to Protect our Environment (CAPE). We are profoundly concerned the uncontrolled quest for growth and profit is an ecological disaster in the making.

Individual members of this Alliance come from all walks of life. Alliance organizations are newly formed grassroots groups, and longstanding allies of the environment and wildlife. Each individual, group or organization has his, her or its own focus. It may be the air we breathe and the health of a loved one; recreational and sport fishing; commercial fishing; greenhouse gases; water supply; effluent in the bays; plastic pellets on the beaches; endangered species; tourism and alternative economic growth; the ecological impact and dangers of large crude oil carriers.

While each will continue to have a specific focus, we all share a common concern that the current industrial build-out, land-based and maritime, presents multiple challenges that must be met. We are aligned in purpose to protect the health of our residents and our delicate and beautiful ecosystem in the Coastal Bend.

Our mission is simple… to protect our environment in challenging times. We include:

Portland Citizens United, Port Aransas Conservancy, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Earthworks, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Clean Economy Coalition, Surfrider Foundation – Texas Coastal Bend Chapter, Sierra Club, San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, For the Greater Good, Islander Green Team, Texas Drought Project.

Errol Summerlin is a longtime resident of Portland and a member of Portland Citizens United.