Desalination plant clears hurdle
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | ∞
NORTH COUNTY -- A state agency has rejected a petition by environmental groups challenging a plan to build the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere in Carlsbad.
But other hurdles remain before waters of the Pacific Ocean can be converted into drinking water.
The State Water Resources Control Board ruled Tuesday against Surfrider Foundation and Coastkeeper, environmental groups that asserted a regional agency should not have issued a permit last summer to allow the plant to return extremely salty water to the ocean. Because that water would contain higher concentrations of salt than the sea itself, the groups alleged, marine life near the plant would be harmed.
Poseidon Resources Corp., the Connecticut-based firm with offices in San Diego that is proposing to build the $300 million desalination plant at the site of the Encina power station north of Cannon Road, praised the board's decision. The ruling upholds the San Diego Regional Water Control Board's August 2006 decision granting the company a discharge permit.
"It is significant because it means we've cleared another hurdle," said Scott Maloni, a spokesman for Poseidon in San Diego, by telephone. "It is also significant because this is the most senior agency responsible for water quality in the state, and they are saying that the petition of Surfrider and Coastkeeper is without merit."
In a prepared statement, Peter MacLaggan, the company's senior vice president, said the ruling is "evidence that the desalination plant can be operated in an environmentally responsible manner, without negative impacts to the marine environment."
Joe Geever, Southern California regional manager for Surfrider Foundation in Los Angeles, termed the terse statement announcing the ruling disappointing.
"The state board didn't tell us their rationale," Geever said. "It leaves us wondering what they were thinking when they dismissed the petition."
Geever said the groups now will turn their attention to another petition they filed to block the issuance of a permit to allow Poseidon to draw in water from the ocean, the raw material for making drinking water. The California Coastal Commission is expected to decide that issue later this year.
"We're confident we're going to win on that front as well," Maloni said.
Poseidon proposes to pump 100 million gallons from the sea daily and convert it into 50 million gallons of drinking water, and the groups assert that huge numbers of fish will be sucked into plant machinery and killed in the process.
Geever contends Poseidon will find the going rough in the wake of a January court decision, Riverkeeper v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. That ruling ordered the federal government to write rules that significantly curb the number of fish killed when water is drawn from rivers, lakes and oceans for cooling power plants and other purposes.
-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 740-5442 or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2007 8:59 AM:Yeah, 1 for the taxpayers and a whole bunch more to go. To bad they didn't start this 20 years ago, we needed it then to. The Surfrider Foundation is not in this for the people, but for their personal and political agendas. I ceased being a member years ago because I don't agree with a lot of the decisions that they make. When they got behind the ban on smoking on the beaches I knew they had gone to far. They chose to attack one group of people and not the rest. They said that cigarette butts on the beach were a terrible thing, but did nothing about the rest of the contributors to all the trash on the beach. We already have laws regarding littering that are not enforced. How about no drinking and eating on the beachs? People that eat and drink on the beach contribute greatly to the trash on our beaches. Now they want to keep us from having fresh water and instead would have us milk the Colorado River until it's dry. The time is getting closer. Just remember, Southern California was a desert before the Spaniards and Europeans came along, and without the Colorado River it would return to its original state.
Alf wrote on Jun 7, 2007 11:49 AM:I had wondered where the "waste" would go, I mean, if the only "waste" was salt and sediment, where would we build "Bandini Mountain"? Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.
Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2007 2:49 PM:Sometimes even your pretty funny Alf!
Alf wrote on Jun 7, 2007 4:19 PM:Thank you, "Nick", but only sometimes? Actually the question of what to do with the byproduct(s) of desal is a quite real one. Man, in his infinite stupidity, keeps running afowl of the law, the law of unintended consequences. Desal the ocean and up the salt concentration by 0.001 percent while adding heat (another nasty byproduct) and see how many species are killed off. For EVERY option there are the good consequences, the bad consequences and the unintentional consequences. Still an unashamed, unabashed Libertarian, Alf.
Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2007 8:00 PM:Very good points Alf, but the question is which ones are we willing to live with? Also, if we keep wasting time looking for alternatives, how long is too long? Personally, I don't really know, but I think it's more sooner than later. The Colorado is filled with melting snow and glacier runoff which is getting less and less. Colorado has been experiencing record droughts in the last 5-10 years and is in the process of bulding more reservoirs and dams to keep more snow melt, which translates into less downstream. I had the privilege of living where the Colorado begins for 10 years and have witnessed the changes in the River firsthand. I spent my summers rafting and kayaking on it. Desal is where it's at, we just need to nail down the particulars.
Marty wrote on Jun 11, 2007 9:27 PM:I personally like the idea of trying to purify the water we've already used for use in non-potable (and eventually potable) contexts. However, the easiest and least expensive partial solution to the problem of insufficient water supply is to quit pouring it straight into the porous, bone-dry soil of Southern California. As Nick astutely observed, SoCal was a desert before the European invasion and would still be without the abuse of our land and water sources. To discontinue the dumping of potable water into sand for the sake of aesthetic pretense (lawns) costs nothing. In fact, it would save us money, immediately as well as down the road.
Eric wrote on Jun 13, 2007 8:34 AM:Require people to stop watering lawns?? While you're at it, tell them to stop driving cars on short trips (ride a bike, walk, etc.). It all sounds great but the public will do what the public does..that is ignore the environmental consequences of waste and over consumption. In the end, water utilities have to keep up with demand - end of story. Already stressed fresh water supplies are dwindling and lacking any new fresh water sources, desalination remains the only real option for coastal areas. Accept it, focus on improving the technology, and move on.
Emily wrote on Jun 22, 2007 11:32 PM:you're so right "NICK" ha ha what a laugh Alf.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement