Reznik: Desalination should be a last resort in our water portfolio
Bruce Reznik
San Diego News Network
01/14/2010
Environmental groups challenging the Carlsbad Desalination Plant have recently come under attack for deeply scrutinizing the project, proposed as the region’s most expensive and energy intensive water supply option. As one of the environmental groups leading the charge, we’re clearing the air.
Truth Number 1: Our cases have merit.
Procedural deficiencies at every reviewing agency have marred the approval process for the plant. While some suggest we are engaging in superfluous lawsuits, this desalination plant will be the largest in the western hemisphere and may set precedent for all other projects. We must ensure it is as protective of our environment as possible. Yet, our regulatory agencies have taken an “approve first, ask questions later” approach that could lead to disastrous consequences.
Our efforts, and those of our partner organizations, have already improved the project dramatically by ensuring carbon offsets and wetlands mitigation to offset some impacts from the proposed project.
Click here to find out more!
Truth Number 2: We don’t oppose desalination.
We support a comprehensive water policy - prioritizing how we get and use our water based on cost, environmental and energy impacts, and reliability. First, we need to exhaust conservation and water efficiency efforts. After the city of San Diego instituted mandatory water use restrictions last year, outside water use dropped 13 percent. In a county where nearly 60 percent of our water goes to residential use (half of that for landscape irrigation), conservation can provide huge savings.
Second, we need to aggressively pursue water reuse. The city of San Diego is currently exploring Indirect Potable Reuse, which recycles wastewater to drinking water standards above that of our current supplies. Rainwater harvesting, grey water and non-potable water reclamation provide other opportunities to access hundreds of millions of gallons of recycled water daily.
Both conservation and reuse are cheaper, more energy efficient than desalination and can dramatically reduce ocean pollution without killing fish in the process.
Truth Number 3: Desalination is the most expensive way to enhance local water supplies.
Conservation saves consumers money by reducing water and energy bills. Augmenting local reservoirs with recycled water uses the same treatment technologies as desalination but at 40 percent of the cost. And while Poseidon continues to claim on its website that its project will be developed at no expense to taxpayers, the truth is the project will receive $350 million over the next 25 years in public Metropolitan Water District subsidies and has a pending $530 million request in tax-free Private Activity Bonds to finance the project.
Truth Number 4: Desalination is also the most energy intensive water option for San Diego.
Estimates show that 19 percent of California’s energy usage is for the treatment, movement and delivery of water. Between 3 and 5 percent of the state’s energy is used simply to move water from Northern to Southern California, but desalination requires more. It also uses one third more energy than recycling wastewater.
Truth Number 5: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
We’ve been asked to stand aside and support public opinion. However few important battles (civil rights, environmental protection, etc.) have been won without taking unpopular positions. The project’s popularity is based on the allure of a seemingly inexhaustible ocean resource and the small fortune Poseidon has paid in public relations and lobbying efforts to promise everything to everybody: for San Diegans, an endless supply of cheap water; for taxpayer/consumer groups, a guarantee of no subsidies; for organized labor, good union jobs; and for environmental groups, full environmental mitigation (the company claims the plant will be a net benefit for wetlands and ocean habitat). Poseidon is San Diego’s real-life Santa Claus.
So, if you are asking yourself, “how does this add up?” you’re ahead of the folks that have approved the project to date. A better question may be, “why did so many appointed officials approve this project (almost always overruling staff recommendations) without asking these tough questions in the face of such obvious contradictions?”
This is the question we are trying to resolve through our challenges.
