Response to Synergen

Synergen recently wrote that it understands the community's concerns about water, the environment and public safety, and that trust will come through transparency rather than promises.

We agree. But transparency requires more than assurances. It requires complete information, independent review, and consistency between what is being told to the public and what has been filed with government agencies.

Synergen now says its proposed plant will require approximately 2 million gallons of brackish groundwater per day and that it has canceled its previous agreement with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority.

That is a significant change.

In April 2025, GBRA's public records stated that Synergen was seeking 7 million gallons per day of long-term water, with 3.5 million gallons per day on an interim basis beginning in 2027.

Today, Synergen says it needs approximately 2 million gallons per day.

If engineering changes reduced the plant's water requirements that substantially, then show the community the information supporting the new number.

Simply calling this water “brackish” does not answer the groundwater question.

What will pumping approximately 2 million gallons every day, year after year, do to the aquifer? What will the drawdown be? Could that pumping affect other groundwater zones or nearby wells?

Those questions should be answered by completed, independently reviewed science — not assurances in a newspaper letter.

We are pleased to hear Synergen say it no longer plans to discharge into Carancahua Bay.

But moving the proposed discharge to Lavaca Bay does not make the environmental questions disappear.

Synergen says Lavaca Bay is a larger body with “far greater flow and dilution capacity.”

Before the community is asked to accept that conclusion, we should see the completed modeling.

What exactly will be discharged? In what concentrations? How much each day? And what does the modeling show will happen after that discharge enters Lavaca Bay?

Lavaca Bay is not simply a larger body of water where industrial discharge disappears. It is part of a living estuary where freshwater inflows, salinity, circulation and dissolved oxygen matter.

“Greater dilution” should not substitute for scientific evidence.

Synergen told the community: “The only storage of ammonia will be located at the Port of Calhoun.”

However, Synergen's own JETI application filed with the Texas Comptroller in March 2026 describes on-site ammonia storage at the production facility.

On page 8 of Synergen's JETI application, the company describes the proposed project as including “on-site ammonia storage” and a dedicated approximately 10-mile pipeline connecting the plant to the Port of Calhoun for export.

On page 18, Synergen's plant layout separately identifies “Ammonia Storage” as part of the production facility.

Then, on page 19, Synergen states that the project includes the construction of “on-site ammonia storage tanks designed for secure, large-volume product holding,” as well as the pipeline transporting ammonia from the plant to the export terminal.

These aren't statements made by opponents of the project. They come directly from Synergen's own JETI application submitted to the Texas Comptroller.

Perhaps Synergen has changed its design since filing the application.

If so, when was on-site ammonia storage eliminated? Why was it changed? Where are the updated plans? And why does Synergen's state filing describe ammonia storage at the plant while its current letter tells residents that the only ammonia storage will be at the Port?

Projects can change. But when a change involves the location and storage of ammonia next to an established residential community, the public deserves a clear explanation and updated documentation.

That is what transparency requires.

Synergen tells residents that ammonia has been safely produced, stored and transported in the United States for more than 100 years.

But residents aren't asking whether ammonia can be handled safely. We are asking what happens here if something goes wrong.

This proposed project involves producing ammonia, moving it through equipment and piping, transporting it approximately 10 miles to the Port, storing it and loading it for shipment.

What is the credible worst-case release? How far could an ammonia cloud travel under adverse weather conditions? Which homes and communities could be affected? How would residents be notified? Would residents evacuate or shelter in place? What happens if an emergency affects TX-172 or another evacuation route? Do our local first responders currently have the personnel, equipment and specialized training necessary to respond to a major ammonia incident? And who will pay for any additional resources that may be required?

Synergen also says its proposed double-walled storage tank at the Port will go “beyond existing safety regulations.” If that is the case, provide the engineering standards and regulatory comparison supporting that statement.

Synergen talks about becoming a long-term community partner, supporting schools, youth programs and local organizations.

Those contributions may benefit a community. But they do not change where this project is being proposed.

This is not an industrial facility being proposed miles away from established neighborhoods. Residential properties directly border the proposed plant site.

Families already live here. People have built their homes and their lives here.

No amount of donations, sponsorships or promises of being a “good neighbor” changes the fact that a major ammonia production facility is being proposed against an existing residential community.

Our families were here first. Our homes were here first. Our community was here first.

We will continue demanding the groundwater studies, discharge analysis, updated ammonia-storage plans and safety information because the public has a right to know the full facts about this project.

But requesting those answers should never be mistaken for acceptance of this project.

We do not believe a major ammonia production facility belongs against an established residential community, and we do not support putting this project in our backyard.

Calhoun County has welcomed industry for generations. But welcoming industry does not mean that every industry belongs in every location.

There are places for heavy industrial development. Against people's homes should not be one of them.

Synergen says trust will not come from promises alone. On that point, we agree.

Calhoun County deserves the facts. And the people who already call this community home deserve to have a voice in what is built at their back doors.