Candidates on Desalination

• Share

What is your position on alternative water supply choice? How do you propose ensuring the desalination project is constrained? Would you support a community-wide vote to measure support/opposition to desalination v. other options?

Rich Davega -

After considering all of the material presented in the Water Master Plan and the history of Cambria’s search for a solution, I support the current plans for a desalinization plant. It is the only supplemental water source that is not climate dependent and is not shared with others.

There are two critical items that must be closely watched as we proceed down that road: cost to the community and controlling growth. We currently have a sizable Federal Government commitment towards the construction cost of the plant. One of the current Board members had a recent discussion with Representative Lois Capps regarding the potential for an increase in the Federal funding in the event that the construction cost increases, which it undoubtedly will, from the original estimates. She indicated that she would support additional funding, if needed. The availability of Federal funding is critical to managing the cost to the community of the project as without this money the impact on all of us would be unmanageable.

Controlling growth, which for me means preserving the Board established ceiling of 4650 connections (serving the Water Wait List), must be accomplished. We need to focus on sizing the plant so it does not support runaway growth and remain mindful of the fact that other parts of our infrastructure will also only support controlled growth. Our roads, schools, sewer plant, etc. are all geared towards supporting only a limited amount of growth. I pledge to “stand guard” against those that would open the doors to full build out.

I do not support revisiting the issue of available water options, and here’s why. I have serious concerns that Cambria could end up with the water equivalent of Los Osos’ sewer problem. The community has been pursuing the supplemental water source solution for as much as 20 years. During that time period, and many CCSD Board member changes, the “best solution” has been studied and debated. Those studying the issue and reviewing the data come from varying perspectives: no growth, controlled growth, and uncontrolled growth. Many of the people that I’ve talked to have grown weary of the uncertainty and just want to get the issue resolved. Some people assign little or no credibility to the year 2000 Desal advisory ballot for a variety of reasons. Some people want all Cambria landowners to have a say in the decision, others do not. Some people have little faith in the accuracy of the data in the Water Master Plan regarding the viability of the supplemental water source alternatives, and want another study of the alternatives. A community-wide vote at this point has the potential for starting the water source study and selection process all over again. I believe that we have gone so far down the road that we should not start over.

Clive Finchamp

Let me add a few more words about building a desalination plant for Cambria. Why would a community like Cambria build such a plant with so much unknown questions about it? How much will it cost is a question that no one has answered yet. I will repeat myself how much will 50 gallons of water cost the ratepayers?

If there is a problem with brine and there certainly is: what will the community do with it and what will is cost? This is a repeated question but it is worth additional consideration.

When you buy a new car you usually what kind of mileage it will get and how long it will last given good maintenance and how it much it will cost over the life of the contract. None of this is known about a desal plant so why would Cambria build one?

We have heard of many different options but which one our community finally use for a project of this magnitude? Will we use reverse osmosis? Or nano technology? Or some other option, such as cogeneration? Or will we use beach wells, which has been discussed at some length.

During the construction of such a plant our highways will be clogged with trucks and with many other types of vehicles such tractors and backhoes of every sort. Do we want this kind of disruption to our lives with a project with so many unanswered questions?

Ilan Funke-Bilu

My position on alternative water supply is well settled. The CCSD has studied this subject for decades. Years ago, during my first term, we specifically analyzed all potential alternative water sources from economical, topographical, political (Coastal Commission and County of San Luis Obispo permit issues)and engineering perspective. We held public hearings and were provided input from concerned citizens. We had an informal election which supported desal . We learned that every alternative man-made water source would cause harm to our environment. Our decision had to be based upon weighing all of the options, considering the adverse consequences, and making the best judgment call that would benefit most Cambrians. I believe that desal, by far, is the only reasonable option . Remember, Cambria is under a legal mandate to provide an alternative water source as soon as possible pursuant to Water Code Section 350 et. seq. In compliance, Cambria has been moving deliberately and steadily, for years, in that direction.

Now, a few Cambrians, some of whom I still recognize from the desal wars in the late 1990′s and early 2000′s, and others who are either new to the issue or to town, are questioning the wisdom of desal. I do not have any problem with my neighbors protesting or questioning anything in our country. It is why I am proud to live here. However, I cannot agree that it is in the best interest of most Cambrians to undo the progress and work we have accomplished in complying with the law unless we are provided some alternative water source that outperforms desal. No one has provided any detailed study such as our District Engineer spearheaded in my first term ( in specific response to the CCSD request ) that even suggests that desal is wrong.

Therefore, I see no need for a “community-wide support/opposition ” measure to rehash rehashed issues. It will harm our community in that it would distract our focus and energy and waste money from more immediate needs. We got work to do–not undo!

Muril Clift

My position on an additional water source has been explained several times since I first applied for the appointment to the CCSD Board. My position has never changed. If we expect to resolve the water moratorium, provide for those on the water wait list and assure current users a water supply during drought conditions we must provide an additional water source.

After extensive study of all the proposed alternative additional water sources I concluded the desalination alternative is the best solution. It is the best solution because:
1. It provides the most reliable source of locally controlled water without regard to drought.
2. It is the most environmentally friendly approach.
3. With the federal grants it is the most economical approach.

I have supported desalination from the start and will work for its implementation. I have previously said water must not be a growth inducing or growth restricting tool. To prevent growth above the wait list, I favor sizing the plant to handle the 4650 connection limit. This would include restricting the intake and output lines to handling that size plant.
I do not favor an additional community wide vote on the issue. Currently 6 of the 7 candidates running for Board positions favor desalination. It is my belief these candidates have surveyed their supporters and found a general agreement in favor of desalination. If there is that perceived agreement then further study of support, or, study of alternatives would only delay implementation and increase costs.

We have a unique opportunity to go forward with an environmentally friendly project that protects this community’s ability to provide for its citizens.
It is time to go forward!

Allan MacKinnon

I fully support the currently proposed RO Desalinization plan with a design limit of supporting the 4,650 maximum water connections. I would recommend the facility design goal to be based on present water usage rates rather than the suggested 20 to 50% additional usage quantities as suggested by the CCSD engineer. By restricting the desal design capacity, e.g., intake sizing, pumps/ filters, etc. we support the 4,650 water master plan only! An aggressive community information/ incentive conservation program would be a good (GREENE) means of adding Quality of Life impact.

I would not support a community-wide vote on such a measure as I believe the November election will provide adequate “Will of the People” feedback to the board.

Joan Cobin

(Added October 11)

This first question posed is now a bit rhetorical since the recent Candidate Forum as all candidates but one support desalination as the desired alternate water source for Cambria. Having said that my response will go a bit further and say unequivocally I support the recently adopted CCSD Water Master Plan (WMP) which identifies Desalination as the most reasonable choice for an alternate water source. The choice of Desalination as the alternate water source was supported by Cambrian residents though an advisory vote when the plan was first conceived, the Board has been moving forward since given that mandate.

The WMP was long in development and long in public review. The completion and adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was the icing on the cake. We are now ready to move forth with all of its components. They include; increasing water storage capacity for fighting fires, a Desalination plant sized for limited population growth to be used during dry season, strategic use of recycled water and continued water conservation strategies. A Build-out Reduction Plan was integrated into the Plan to offset growth inducing potential of Desal Plant.

(Editor’s note: All candidates were asked to respond. These are the responses received thus far.)

Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice

• Gail Robinette Chosen to Complete DeMicco's Term as CCSD Director on Unanimous Vote
• California Coastal Commission Unanimously Denied Army Corps Desal Tests
• Cambria CSD Agenda for November 27, 2011 Meeting Includes Water Conservation & New Tank Project
• Sunken Oil Tanker Off Cambria's Coastline Will Be Checked Again Soon