Desalting the Ocean - Periodic Update

Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute (www.pacinst.org) addressed the Coastal Commission on December 14, 2005 as part of a continuing effort to provide the California public with an unbaised debate and analysis regarding over one dozen mostly private sponsored proposals to build residential desalination facilities up and down the California coast.

Gleick said that desalination is often considered to be something Californians believe we need- a "new" fresh water supply. Desalination can also reduce dependence on local resources, improve water system reliability in event of disasters, drought or shortages and in many cases desal can deliver very high quality water.

Gleick then asked, "Could these factors be achieved without desal?" Given the cost, energy consumption and environmental impacts, are there feasible alternatives to desal?"

These, of course, are questions that most California communities supporting private desal proposals have never bothered to ask themselves before committing rate-payer dollars to the ventures.

Gleick told the Commission that water use effeciency and conservation can both reduce need for new water supplies. "Effeciency," Gleick said, "is doing the things we need to do with less water, not prohibiting showers or baning watering the lawn. Efficiencies can reduce stress on local systems, supplies and often are much cheaper and faster, and save energy compared to desal."

Gleick then zeroed in on some of the problems with desal proposals. To date, they have not been required to be capital competitive, but instead have been subsidized by government and rate-payer handouts. In fact, desal proponents are currently engaged in efforts to exempt their projects from legal review and oversight such as provided for by the California Coastal Act.

Gleick also told the Commission that private ownership over public water supplies is a very important issue that must be further addressed.

Gleick also said that environmental and financial impacts associated from "co-locating" desal plants with coastal power plants and artificially extending the lives of those plants has not been adequately studied.

Gleick and Pacific Institute then recommended that the Coastal Commission support:

(1) full legal CEQA/Coastal Act review for all projects, even co-locator projects; and

(2) that all government subsidies for desal be eliminated so that desalination plants be required to cost competitive; and

(3) that a statewide assessment be required of water conservation and effeciecny potential before any desal decisions or approvals occur; and

(4) that a statewide plicy on rates and billing structure is needed before any project is approved; and

(5) that climate change analysis also be precursor to any desalination project.

Commissioner Sara Wan initiated comments from the Commission by informing Dr. Gleick that under the Coastal Act, any growth inducing impacts resulting form any coastal desalination plant would also need examination. Wan may have been referencing the massive 50 mgd desal proposal in Orange County which is projected not to serve existing coastal residents, but will merely facilitate unsustainable inland residential sprawl.

Commission Chair Meg Caldwell asked for more information regarding the public v. private ownership issues, as well as pricing, incentives for conservation, default and responsibility.

Gleick responded by citing the Florida nightmare in Tampa Bay, where private developers built one of the world's largest desal plants and then abandoned the project and left the public to be responsible for significant costs not anticipated in original plan.

Commissioner Dave Potter defended desal, and said that, "I don't believe conservation will solve the problem and conservation efforts will be eclipsed by growth. I believe you should examine expanded aquifer storage. In Monterey, we use recycled water for golf courses and agricultural. Aquifer storage and reclaimation has benefits."

Gleick said, " I agree completely that conservation is not the only answser- it is not a one legged stool. New infrastructure, reclaimation etc. all will play roles. I disagree, however, with you regarding conservation. The upside benefits of conservation are so enormous and potentially much cheaper than other alternatives. Rigorous review should determine the path, not other considerations."

Commissioner Caldwell then asked, "Can you be more specific regarding operational aspects of conservation and how do we explore and pursue and implement them?"

Gleick responded that we use water many ways for numerous purposes. The largest water use indoors in California is toilets- 8 million old style flushers are in use right now and the water savings from that retrofit alone would be enough to satisfy entire communities. Gleick went on to say that capturing effeciency improvements will require lots of small pieces- some are easy and some are more difficult. Regardless though, nearly all of it is easier and cheaper than building desalination plants.

Commissioner Larry Clark then told the Commission that the largest single water use in Southern California is landscape related. Yet technology available today can eliminate wasted first use water and benefits are gigantic. If every lawn owner had solar powered humidity driven irrigation, that savings alone might eliminate the need for desalination plants.

Commissioner William Burke said that in California we have more grass lawns than 40 other states combined. According to Commissioner Burke, research in Southern California indicates that grass is detrimental to air quality. Thus, golf courses are not a positive environmental benefit. Lawns are a hidden cost to the health of the environment, and water usage is only one example of that cost.

Gleick then promised the Commission that his presentation would soon be available on his website at www.pacinst.org

Posted: Thu - December 22, 2005 at 05:20 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C41503799"); >

Desalting the Ocean - Periodic Update

> >