Texas Doesn’t Have to Choose Between Growth and Water
My vision for desalination, Texas jobs, and a stronger future
By Freddie America | Freddie America For Texas
We should be planning how to produce more usable water—not just arguing over who gets less.
As a Texas electrical contractor and rancher, I believe our state’s future depends on building the infrastructure that families, farms, and businesses need to succeed. That means thinking about water, energy, and economic development together.
I support innovation. I support bringing opportunity to Texas. But my position is simple: growth should strengthen the communities that make it possible.
Texas growth must pay for Texas water growth.
That is the principle behind the water project I am advocating: a coordinated approach combining desalination, water reuse, responsible industrial development, and opportunities for Texas workers.
Build additional water supplies—not just additional demand
Desalination removes dissolved salts from water so it can become a usable freshwater supply after appropriate treatment. One common method, reverse osmosis, pushes water through specialized membranes that separate it from dissolved salts. This is not an untested idea: Texas already uses desalination to treat brackish water, including at facilities serving El Paso and San Antonio.
My proposal is to build on that foundation rather than expect one technology or one facility to solve every region’s needs.
We should expand water reuse where it makes sense, evaluate brackish groundwater projects where supplies can be developed responsibly, and pursue carefully selected coastal seawater desalination projects.
Here in North Texas, we already have an example worth understanding. The East Fork Raw Water Supply Project uses constructed wetlands to help treat reused water before it is conveyed to Lavon Lake. Water reuse is not just a future possibility—it is already part of our region’s supply system.
I want us to examine how we can build on these approaches while developing additional supplies for the future. That includes the pipelines, pumping stations, storage, and treatment facilities needed to get water where it belongs.
A coastal desalination plant would not automatically deliver affordable water to every inland community. The Texas Water Development Board explains that coastal desalination can also benefit inland areas indirectly by reducing coastal demand on shared conventional supplies. Any proposed inland pipeline would need its own engineering and cost analysis.
The goal is a connected strategy—not an expensive project built without a practical plan for its customers.
Data centers should help build the infrastructure they need
Texas does not have to choose between AI and water. But we should insist on responsible development.
My proposal calls for major water-using developments, including data centers, to help finance the additional infrastructure needed to serve them.
That could include negotiated contributions toward reclaimed-water systems, desalination capacity, dedicated pipelines, storage, and necessary power upgrades. I also want clear, enforceable agreements addressing long-term operating responsibilities and protecting communities against unfinished commitments.
Before a project receives public support, residents should be able to understand where its water will come from, how much it will need during peak conditions, what infrastructure it will help fund, and what protections will remain during drought.
Cooling design matters, too. A facility can circulate water through an internal loop while still losing water through an evaporative cooling tower elsewhere in the system. The Department of Energy describes this arrangement in its guidance for data centers. That is why we should evaluate the entire cooling system—not rely on a label alone.
I support low-water cooling designs, including closed-loop approaches where appropriate, paired with transparent reporting of actual water use.
The standard should be measurable results: less pressure on community supplies and a fair contribution toward new capacity.
Plan the power supply and protect the environment
Desalination requires energy, and its costs depend on the source water, treatment process, location, and project size. Brackish water generally requires less energy to desalinate than seawater because it contains less salt.
That means energy cannot be an afterthought.
I want water projects evaluated alongside reliable power supplies, efficient equipment, and the grid improvements they may require. Longer-term studies should also examine advanced energy options, including small modular nuclear reactors, against realistic standards for safety, licensing, cost, water use, and delivery schedules.
We should not delay a workable water project while waiting for an energy technology that cannot meet its timetable.
Environmental protection must be part of the design from the beginning. Seawater intakes and concentrated brine discharge can affect marine life, making site selection and appropriate safeguards important.
My proposal is not to dump untreated waste or hot water into the ocean and call it progress. I want independent review, responsible brine management, and public monitoring built into the project.
Protecting our water future should also mean protecting the places that supply it.
Study the opportunity in what we remove
Desalination produces freshwater and a concentrated stream called brine. I believe we should investigate whether useful materials can be recovered from that stream instead of treating it only as a disposal problem.
There is a real research foundation for this idea. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that researchers have extracted critical minerals from desalination brine, including magnesium. It also makes an important point: commercial viability remains uncertain and depends on processing costs, scale, and market conditions.
That is an opportunity to test—not a profit we should promise before the evidence exists.
I want a pilot program to determine which materials could be recovered safely and economically, whether buyers exist, and whether processing them in Texas could support additional industries.
Prove the technology. Prove the economics. Then expand what works.
Make Texas workers and communities part of the plan
As a contractor, I want local businesses and skilled tradespeople included from the beginning—not left watching opportunity pass them by.
My proposed workforce goal is ambitious: 80% Texas-based hiring wherever lawful and practical, with strong priority for host communities. That should be supported by apprenticeships, training partnerships, and genuine opportunities for local contractors.
I want the employment plan to address both construction and long-term operations. Communities deserve to know which jobs are temporary, which are permanent, and how residents can qualify for them.
My broader goal remains reducing—and ultimately replacing—property taxes with dependable alternatives while protecting schools, supporting teachers, and improving infrastructure.
But I will not claim that one desalination plant or an unproven mineral-recovery process can accomplish that by itself. Any public revenue benefit would need to be demonstrated after operating expenses, financing obligations, maintenance, and reserves are covered.
The first responsibility is dependable water at a defensible cost. Any additional economic benefit should be real, transparent, and accountable.
Start with a serious pilot and a public plan
This is an advocacy proposal, not an announcement of an approved or funded plant.
The next step I am calling for is a feasibility effort involving water providers, engineers, researchers, industry, potential investors, and the communities that would be affected.
That effort should compare suitable locations and technologies, identify customers, test environmental safeguards, and publish the full cost of treating and delivering the water. A pilot should answer those questions before anyone commits to a large-scale buildout.
I am asking Texans to support that work and asking decision-makers to bring water infrastructure into growth discussions from the beginning.
To me, water security is part of economic security and national security. It should not be treated as somebody else’s problem or postponed until a shortage forces our hand.
We can welcome innovation without asking families and farmers to carry all the risk. We can pursue additional water supplies while protecting our environment. And we can insist that Texas workers share in the opportunity.
Share this proposal, bring it to your community’s planning discussions, and ask a straightforward question:
When growth comes to Texas, what will it help build for Texans?
Texas growth must pay for Texas water growth.
Freddie America For Texas
Comments