The May meeting of the CCSD Board provided some glimpses on some of the most critical policies of the District. The district is pursuing desalination at any cost, virtually ignoring the most cost effective element of its “balanced portfolio” of water supply: conservation.
Some evidence: Over $6,000 a month on a lobbyist for desal, at least a portion of the district engineer’s salary, and untold hours of staff time in just one month of spending versus $2,000 (or less) budgeted for the entire year for the rebate program that offers $150 for every water conserving replacement of a toilet or washer. In fact, the entire budget for 2009-10 for conservation programs is less than what they plan to pay the desal lobbyist.
Policy is a social choice. It is not determined by science, although it is, or should be, informed by such.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=9b47917c-8be5-43c6-90e8-cbd7640637de)
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
Great point, Amanda.
And intelligent people are asking themselves ” Why? Why this Desal at any cost approach?
Who are the loudest proponents of Desal? What are their motives? How will they benefit from Desal? ”
What about the other identified alternatives that cost less in money and less negative impact on the environment like recycling, as you mention.
An infinitely expandable water source (desal) can open up development of this area while trashing the environment and raising water costs for all of us. Oh but there won’t be development because the CCSD is going to buy up all the extra buildable lots to prevent that. Where are they going to get the millions and millions of dollars needed to buy all of these lots? What would they do with all of the excess water beyond what our community needs? Maybe they can sell it to Paso Robles, Templeton, San Simeon, Big Sur for a profit.
The other water source options do not require a build out reduction plan because they cannot provide excess amounts of water for development so that mitigation is not required.
And who is they anyway? Since the Feds and the Army Corps of Engineers is on the job, would the desal plant be a federal plant? Do we lose local control of our community and water since the feds are involved now?
Why pay a lobbyist $6,000.00 a month to get Cambria federal money for Desal when Lois Capps already got us $2.5MM this year for desal? She is already on board and committed to the project based on what she has been told. Why do we have to keep paying the lobbyist AKA “schmoozer”?
Community: Ask the questions, do some research and get back to us with your opinions on this critical question for our community. The CCSD has decided to support desal at any cost….but have you?
Although I’m not a community member, I’ve been researching the impending desal in Cambria for about 6 months now, just because it sparks my interest. There are a couple of problems with your argument against desal. First, recycled water isn’t potable and therefore wouldn’t be the best option for Cambria. The other leading water supply source in California is importing water. Both importing water and recycling water do require less energy and output less emissions that desal but the needs of Cambria can’t be met with either option. California currently has the largest imported water infrustructure in the world. The problem is, imported water has to be just that, imported. California has been in a drought emergency for 3 years now. With drought seasons getting more severe as the climate changes, expanding the imported water system would not be logical. Therefore, the remaining option is desal. Secondly, a desal plant is considered hazard mitigation for Cambria. Currently, Cambria does not have enough water and pressure for adaquate fire flow. That means that if a fire were to occur (Cambria is located in a very high fire hazard zone, fyi) there would not be enough water to adaquately fight it. Seeing as how most of the Montery Pine trees in the area are diseased and dying, it would be difficult to contain the fire. A lot of houses in Cambria are located within these pine trees. Second, the price of desal is higher, that’s true. So far though, the State has provided Cambria was approx. 10 million. Yes, some of the money (about 1/4) will have to come from residents. Is that all that bad when you consider the surcharges currently in place? These surcharges are subject to increases, which the residents have already seen. Third, desal does not destroy the environment! This is perhaps the arguement that irks me the most. Desal changes the environment, it doesn’t destroy it. Changes would include decreasing the pressure put on local streams. This would allow the environment to return to it natural state, increasing the fish population to it’s normal numbers, etc. Right now, drawing water from the natural aquifers are negatively impacting the environment, desal would reverse that. As for the water intakes, with current technology, these don’t impact the environment. I can’t remember where I saw the particular picture I’m thinking of but it showed organisms attached to the water intakes. They were living on the intakes. Desal also puts out water with higher concentrations of salt. This doesn’t destroy the environment, it changes it. The area it changes isn’t that large either. Think of Diablo Canyon, it outputs warm water. The waters surrouding Diablo Canyon are home to one of the largest populations of seals (I may have the animal species wrong, this is off of the top of my head). Basically, colder water organisms “moved out” and warmer water organisms “move in”. There’s just as much life there as before. Desal would have a similar effect in terms of salt concentration, not temperature. Fourth, the desal plant would produce enough water to manage Cambria at its current population. Even if it DID allow for a little growth, it’s worth it. More homes could be saved in case of a fire! So maybe you’re still asking how you’ll benefit from desal. I’ll review: Adaquate fire flow=saves homes, saves lives, saves money in case of a disaster. Environmental benefits= relieve pressure on streams. In addition, maybe a controlled burn could be done to revive the pine trees that Cambrians love so much. Residential benefits= clean water! and no more rediculous surcharges. I understand that this is the perspective of an outsider and therefore the desal plant doesn’t affect me. However, I have done my homework (literally) on desal in general and how Cambria would benefit from this type of water supply. Conservation is always #1 but it is unrealistic to think that conservation on its own will solve Cambria’s problems.
While Michelle does make a few good points, I have also done my homework and would like to make a few things clear.
1. Recycled water isn’t potable, but it would relieve the strain on our potable supply by being available to water our yards. Indoor water use per capita is only about 71 gallons per person per day (1999 AWWA study). Outdoor use can easily be 100 gallons per day or more – with just 15 minutes of watering. In the Task 4 Water Supply Alternatives Analysis, 2002, both recycled water and demand management scored higher on the rubric for evaluating the alternatives for Cambria than desalination. (see http://www.cambriacsd.org “water Master Plan” Page 52 of Section 8 of Task 4)
2. Imported water was reviewed by the CCSD Board. They found a pipeline from Whale Rock Reservoir would cost slightly less than desal (in 2000), but that desal has a higher probability of funding availability, so Whale Rock (and other importing) plans were scrapped. (Task 4 Water Supply Alternatives Analysis, 2002). Federal funding is not yet guaranteed and will not come without strings attached. Our current $6,000/month lobbyist is there to “make sure” we aren’t left out of the federal money pot. Also, the most recent estimates of how much the plant will cost (without solar energy option) ranges from $16 to $20 million.
3. Desalination has environmental trade-offs. Yes, the creeks would be less affected, but the ocean will also be affected. No matter what path Cambria chooses, the environment around us will change. Who am I to say whether the changes are for the better or worse? To claim it as an environmental mitigation, while maybe technically accurate, is disingenuous and leans to hypocrisy – especially since there are other effects on the environment. Comparing warm water to water of higher salinity is an apples to oranges comparison.
4. The CCSD has embarked on a capital improvement program to address water pressure for fire suppression. The primary reason given for the Pine Knolls tanks upgrades was for just this reason. The recent County Resource Management Study removed the level 3 severity it had previously determined since the new tanks are online and water pressure for firefighting is no longer considered inadequate. (see http://aboutcambria.com/2009/03/07/be-a-winner-everytime/) Desalination will not provide adequate pressure or quantity for fire flow. Adequate water and pressure fire flow has to come from the ability to store water, since a single house fire requires 1,500 gallons per minute (90,000 gallons for just an hour) a desal plant will not be providing that water. (Chief Putney, 2008) It can’t. The water stored in Pine Knolls tanks and the other storage tanks will have to provide it.
5. The desal is to provide water for more homes. Our current water supply is adequate and reliable for the current population (Water Master Plan, Task 2). Even in the 3rd dry year of a drought, there is a 95% reliability for current users without ANY reduction of use. We’re now entering the dry season of a 3rd dry year. Last year we pumped less than any previous year and were not subject to surcharges.
I’m glad to have the opportunity to have this discussion. Six months interest is good. I too have done my homework. Cambria has an array of issues related to our water constraints and understanding our reality is critical if we are to move forward in a way that makes sense.
To sum up: Desal will not provide better firefighting capabilities; Environmental benefits will be paid for with environmental costs – even if its a wash; Residents may not be subject to surcharges, but the price of water may go up to equal what surcharge rates have been – a year-round increase, not just 6 month period.
Thanks, Michelle, for joining the research and conversation about natural resources in and around Cambria. I trust you are doing this where you live too. How did you become interested in Cambria?
Thanks, Amanda, for clarifying many of the issues raised by Michelle. The conversations about Cambria benefit immensely from your work.
I want to ask, Michelle, about the data you used to determine that “most of the Monterey Pine trees in the area are diseased and dying.” Whose interpretation of the condition of the forest are you using?
You talk about changing or destroying the environment. Watching two crows and a gray squirrel fight this week taught me a good deal about perspective, need, and desire. The conversation about natural resources starts with a question. How inclusive is the ecological community on Planet Earth? From how many perspectives do we ask each question about when destructive change is necessary? For example, seals and plankton have quite different perspectives. How do we humans take that into account and respect it in our actions?
I look forward to the continuing conversation.
“The other water source options do not require a build out reduction plan because they cannot provide excess amounts of water for development so that mitigation is not required.”
You don’t have the legal option of only expanding to take care of current residents. That would violate the terms of the Water Code 350 moratorium declaration.
You don’t have the option of not having a buildout reduction plan. You can’t leave all those lots in limbo forever.
Why don’t you banish irrigation altogether and require only un-irrigated native plantings? That would probably generate enough savings to allow lifting the moratorium without costing any money in capital improvements.