CCSD has for years fixated on desalination as the next, best opportunity for a new, supplemental water supply for Cambria. The decisions of this and prior Boards have jeopardized the future of Cambria. Their decisions have put us on a path to developing the most expensive and unsuccessful technology for a new drinking water source. Desalination is an amazing technology. Forcing non-potable water through fine reverse-osmosis membranes at high pressures purifies the water to drinking water standards. However, the high pressures require high cost energy to run the plant pumps. The membrane filter process yields high concentrations of salt laden contaminates, difficulty in cleaning the membranes, and raises great concerns for discharge of the filter waste to the environment.
Is desalination California’s answer to the drought?
Northern California just endured its driest winter in 20 years. The state’s population is growing by half a million people a year. New dams are controversial. Although 10 years ago there were none, today 20 desalination projects are on the drawing board in California’s coastal areas from San Diego to Marin County. Filtering salty ocean water into drinkable fresh water is expensive. And environmental challenges loom. But groundbreaking on several facilities may start within two years. New technology has cut the cost of filtering ocean water in half since 1990. Still, the process, which uses large amounts of electricity, can cost at least three times as much as other ways. In large part because of high costs, none of California’s 20 proposed projects is under construction. San Jose Mercury News_ 6/3/07
Desalination, with a Grain of Salt – Pacific Institute June 2006
“The potential benefits of ocean desalination are great, but the economic, cultural, and environmental costs of wide commercialization remain high.”
Less than 10% of desalination in the US is for desalination of seawater. The remaining capacity is primarily dedicated to desalinating wastewater and pure water for high-quality industrial purposes.
Of the plants constructed, many have not lived up to the expectations of cost of construction or operating efficiency. Tampa Bay built for over $100 Million has been fraught with difficulties due to “serious management and technological failures.” Changes valued at over $29Million (25+% over-run) have yet to yield an operating plant – six years late!
California experience is no better for municipal systems. Santa Barbara’s RO plant was decommissioned as it never operated commercially and proved to be an expensive burden. They decided to use other sources “more fully”. City of Morro Bay’s RO plant is intermittently used as an emergency source. Marina Coast Water District’s RO plant was idle at the time of the Pacific Institute report. Santa Catalina Island’s RO plant is inactive.
Who is moving ahead with their studies, even in light of all the adverse results to-date?
Large municipalities or water districts with deep pockets. Marin Municipal Water District; East Bay MUD/SF Utility Commission/Santa Clara Valley Water District; EBMUD; Monterrey Water and Sanitary District; City of Santa Cruz; California Water Company; LADWP; Long Beach; Huntington Beach; Orange County; San Diego/Orange County…
What are our Alternatives?
Recycled Water
Recycled water or tertiary treated water can be used for landscape and agriculture irrigation as well as groundwater-recharge, which would benefit the environmental concerns at Santa Rosa Creek and supplement the groundwater levels in San Simeon well field. The State Water Board and Coastal Commission place recycled water reuse as its highest priority of sound water supply management after household conservation. California Water Code Section 13511 states “The legislature finds and declares that a substantial portion of the future water requirements of this state may be economically met by beneficial use of recycled water….Use of recycled water constitutes the development of “new basic water supplies” as that term is used” in the water code.
Surface Water Supplies – State Water Project via San Luis Obispo County
The Bay News (Morro Bay and Cayucos) January 10, 2008 states: ”Of the (SLO) County’s 25,000 AF entitlement, only 4,830AF are actually under contract…Under the latest State apportionment of water San Luis Obispo could have gotten 6,250AF. (Which means that 1,420AF is availablefor sale). The County wants to sell the excess water allotment to the Central Coast Water Authority(Santa Barbara)!!! CCSD should immediately open discussions with SLO County to reserve rights to a new water supply by means of a 1 year water reliability agreement. All SLO County property owners have paid for our portion of the state water on their property tax bills for decades. Sale of our water to Santa Barbara, while we plan to pat $Millions for a new expensive, water supply is irresponsible!!!
Why can’t Cambria have the same benefits as every other coastal community? Is it the CCSD or San Luis Obipso County who has failed us?
Who are the beneficiaries of proper and timely planning? – Morro Bay (1,313AF), Pismo Beach (1,100AF), Questa College, County Jail Complex, California Men’s Colony, Oceano CSD, Avila CSD, and SLO Coastal School District.
Who has no benmefits of State water – Cambria!
Well Supplies
CCSD has failed to optimize the usage of the Santa Rosa well field and the San Simeon well field. Safe yield as determined by the State of California and agreed to by the State Fish and Game are a total over 1,600 AF. Our withdrawal permits total 1,230AF and we have never used more than 820AF (1988).
CCSD needs to reevaluate their decision making regarding the use of our valuable well fields. CCSD should be petitioning the State and the Fish and Game for further definition to the pumping regimens, be more cooperative and pro-active in their dealings with the State and County to utilize our full allotment of water supply.
Frank J. DeMicco
Last 5 posts by Frank J. DeMicco
Quote:
“It is time we revisit exactly how desalination became the choice for water reliability in Cambria.Was the means for this choice legal?
It is time we challenge all the assumptions about the need for a new water source and revisit alternative in our own Water Master Plan”
These things have already been done. You can obtain copies and review them. If you can shoot holes in them, please let us know about it.
Quote:
“It is time we challenge all the assumptions that the water wait list has any legal foundation and that we have to build a desalination facility, fund a costly build out [reduction] plan just to provide water to those for those lot owners.”
If you don’t fund desal and a buildout reduction plan, you’ll be funding an even bigger buildout reduction plan.
Quote:
“It is time we find out exactly who are these wait list people to ensure there is no conflict of interest in any decisions regarding a water supply,”
Considering you knew my waitlist position and published it here, even though it’s not public information, it seems like you already know who the waitlist people are. But if you really don’t, I’ll be more than happy to send you my list. You won’t find any lurking evil on it. Just regular folks.
Quote:
“It is time we give up on engineer driven water projects and planning that have dominated the CCSD mentality for 15 years. 21st century solutions are the key which means reuse of existing supplies and better management of existing supplies.”
Are you saying that reuse and management of existing programs would not have engineering?
The Tampa Bay failures were bureaucratic, not technological. It was an ill-advised contractual arrangement.
Santa Barbara is old old technology. It was mothballed when they decided to tie into the State Water Project. Something Cambria unfortunately declined to do because of cost.
The State Water Project is not reliable in a drought though.
Other agencies are using their systems as backup, just as CCSD is proposing to do.
Huntington Beach and San Diego municipalities or districts are not proposing plants. Poseidon is proposing private plants in both locations. The San Diego plant was recently overwhelmingly approved by the Coastal Commission, but now Sierra is suing over it.
It’s funny to see complaining on this board about not being able to get state water since some of the people now complaining about desal are the same ones who blocked allowing the state water pipeline to reach Cambria. I would be all for such a pipeline. Who’s going to pay for it? I would gladly pay more than my fiar share. Do you really think that’s cheaper than desal? Check CCSD’s studies on that.
“Is it the CCSD or San Luis Obipso County who has failed us?” It’s the citizens of Cambria, who have voted for the boards of CCSD over the years.
As for Santa Rosa, the SRWQCB says it’s OK now to pump from there. CCSD is avoiding it because of the MTBE. They can filter out the MTBE if they want to. If you think they should, why don’t you tell them that? If they were willing to do that, fight the upstream users, and take their full allocation out of Santa Rosa, they would have enough capacity to lift the moratorium. Fine by me.
Someone said in the second paragraph that “New Dams are Controversial”.
Just ask the recipients of water from this nations operating dams if they are
“Controversial”.
If we can just find a way to cancel the paychecks of the California Coastal Commission and seat some REALISTIC people in their chairs a
lot of problems will be solved in California.
1. Frank, will you immediate repudiate your negative statements regarding Desal, considering your POSITIVE SUPPORT for desal at the Tuesday Candidate Forum?. I would hope you are not just telling people what they want to hear…that is not the mark of a good community leader!
2. In your final paragraphs regarding creek yields and pumping. As a water professional you owe your readers a better explanation of our creek conditions:-
A. Yes, the amounts you stated (1600 af+) are allocated for Cambria’s use BUT our first requirement is to maintain endangered species in both creeks. What this means is that when the creek surface starts to dry up, if species are caught in the pools that remain, we can be held liable for their death (a “taking” which can result in heavy fines) particularly if we can be shown to have continued to pump without a respite to allow the creeks to recover.
Note, this has been explained (ad nauseam perhaps?) several times at CCSD mtgs. recently, I really hope folks pay attention to the mundane but important tasks of our water professionals.
B.. You mention dealing with State regulators. As recent as last Fall as creek levels fell we attempted to obtain relief from the “Taking” penalties if we had to pump Santa Rosa even more.This was greeted by silence, F & G did not give us the courtesy of a response. Welcome to the (un)real world of local government.