Coastal group, company dicker over Carlsbad desal info
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer | ∞
SAN DIEGO ---- When the California Coastal Commission charged recently that Poseidon Resources, Inc. was withholding information about its plans to build a Carlsbad desalination plant, it was not the first time someone had leveled such criticism at the company.
San Diego County Water Authority officials, during several years of contentious on-again-off-again negotiations to be part of the Carlsbad project, once complained that Poseidon had used business-secret confidentiality claims to withhold environmental information.
The agency broke off negotiations a year ago, but has endorsed the project.
In Tampa Bay, Fla., where Poseidon helped build a desalination plant that endured problems from 2003 to 2005, officials still say Poseidon used confidentiality claims to "conceal" information that would have made the plant operate better.
Despite that, local water officials who desperately want the Carlsbad seawater desalting plant to succeed because of drought worries, refused to criticize Poseidon after the California Coastal Commission's staff complained July 3 that Poseidon was not turning over requested information.
Some even suggested, as Poseidon did, that the commission may be asking for more information than it needs to decide whether to build the plant that would churn out 50 million gallons of drinking water a day at Carlsbad's Encina Power Plant.
"Most people know that there's actually staff on the Coastal Commission who are adamantly against desalination," said Bud Pocklington, who is board member for both the Water Authority and the South Bay Irrigation District that has agreed to buy some of the Carlsbad water Poseidon's plant would produce.
Poseidon itself, which eventually allowed the Water Authority to conduct its own environmental testing and has denied the Tampa Bay complaints, said last week that it was close to reaching a resolution with the Coastal Commission on its information requests.
However, company officials also said that they've asked to meet with the Coastal Commission's board in August to appeal to circumvent those requests if they can't reach a resolution.
Key permit
The Coastal Commission, which must approve the project for it to be built, has long been considered the Poseidon project's biggest regulatory hurdle. Created by state voters in 1972, the commission is charged with protecting, conserving and restoring California's coast.
Poseidon has been trying for 10 months to get the commission's staff to judge its application "complete" and pass it forward to the commission board for a ruling in November. The company hopes the plant could start churning out water by 2010.
However, the staff has returned Poseidon's application four times, most recently July 3, asking for more information.
The proposed plant would use a portion of the seawater the Encina plant sucks in from the ocean to cool its electricity-generating turbines and then spits back into the sea. Poseidon's plant would force some of that water through high-tech membranes to extract the salt and create drinking water.
The brine would be poured back into the ocean. If approved, the plant would be the largest in the United States. Poseidon has reached agreements with the city of Carlsbad and several other local water agencies to buy the plant's water.
More questions
Tom Luster, the commission's desalination expert, said recently that the agency still had substantial financial and environmental questions.
He said the agency wanted to know more about the estimated cost of the water the plant would produce, and asked to see Poseidon's contract with Encina's operators.
He said the commission wanted more information about whether the plant could or should be smaller, whether the plant would increase greenhouse gas emissions, and if the plant could use subsurface wells to get its water instead of pulling it directly from the ocean.
Luster also said that, when he and commission staffers issued their rejection letter, they had asked Poseidon for much of that information "over and over again," in the last 10 months, but Poseidon had not complied.
Poseidon Vice President Peter MacLaggan has repeatedly said the company has given the commission all the information needed to complete their application and rule on the project.
He said that every time Poseidon had given the commission staff more information, they used it to bring up new questions.
"We believe the application and subsequent submittals to the staff include all the information required to deem the application complete," MacLaggan said.
Both Luster and MacLaggan said late last week that they had talked, and they hoped they could come to an amicable compromise.
The two men said a key unresolved problem was the commission's request to review Poseidon's deal with the power plant's operators. The report, they said, would help show how much the electricity would cost over the plant's 30-year lifetime.
"It's a proprietary arrangement, and we don't care to make that information public at this time," MacLaggan said. However, MacLaggan said the two sides were trying to work out a deal to let the commission see the contracts on the condition they remained confidential.
Trouble brewing?
MacLaggan dismissed the suggestion that Poseidon could be headed into another dispute over information ---- and the characterization that Poseidon had such disputes with the Water Authority and Tampa Bay Water.
"I take exception to what you said about the Water Authority," he said. "I urge you to talk to our partners in Carlsbad and others. We've been very forthright in making information available."
Water Authority managers declined to comment last week.
One board member, Mark Watton, would only say the Poseidon negotiations were "exceedingly difficult." South Bay's Pocklington said Poseidon "holds their information close to their vests."
However, Watton, Pocklington, and other water officials suggested that the commission's staff could be predisposed against seawater desalination projects.
Since 2004, the commission has been on record as warning that it would look at issues outside traditional environmental harm when judging desalination projects, such as whether they could increase population growth and development.
The commission has also suggested that it doesn't like the idea that profit-driven companies, rather than public agencies, should be in charge of managing and pricing water supplies.
Luster, meanwhile, said the commission was not anti-desalination. He said the agency's staff was simply trying to get all the information coastal commissioners would need to make a decision. Luster said there was no animosity.
"I'm just doing what we need to do," Luster said. "It's not personal."
MacLaggan, meanwhile, said the company would appeal to the commission's board if Poseidon and Luster couldn't reach an agreement and rule the application complete.
He said with Southern California's drought, and droughts affecting Southern California's Colorado River and Northern California water supplies, the Carlsbad desalination plant was sorely needed.
"There is a sense of urgency at play here," MacLaggan said. "The water supply situation in Southern California has deteriorated significantly in the 10 months since we submitted this application."
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com. Comment at nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Carter: wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:13 AM: There are several thing for sure - we had better go back as far as we can while looking at Poseiden. It wouldn't the first time a back East company came to North County and tried a Flim Flam on us. The next thing is - we had better do something fast about our water situation. Our water supply from the north is being impacted by the Delta Smelt and Judges that like the smelt better than they like people. Our water supply from the East is being impacted by Mussels and a need to place liners in the All American Canal to prevent seepage and great losses of water. I would like to think that after these problems are solved that will be the end of our water problems. That is wishful thinking. The greatest future impact will be from a massive increase in population. We need the desal plant and more like it, but not from a company, supported by some of our own people, that is looking to make a killing and perhaps not solve our water needs. I am amazed at our people involved in the desal deal in Carlsbad. I know that we have here in North County engineers capable of putting in desal plants. We should do the whole thing ourselves. Forget the people from the East. They are nothing but trouble according to what I have read in the NCT.
Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Jul 16, 2007 6:20 AM:Nor is this the first time that the Coastal Commission has been charged with delay and obstruction. Commission staff don't want to approve the project for ideological reasons. However, they don't want to deny the permit application outright because they don't want to get spanked in court. So, unable to make a decision, they ask for more information. It's simply safer for these salaried zealots to kick the can down the road, hoping that the issue will go away. And it's not their problem if San Diego runs out of fresh drinking water.
Owen wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:09 AM:Dear Gig, I enjoyed reading your story this morning: �Coastal group, company dicker over Carlsbad desal info� and would like to comment. A cursory reading of your comment �In Tampa Bay, Fla., where Poseidon helped build a desalination plant that endured problems from 2003 to 2005�� tends to leave the reader with the impression that the Tampa Bay seawater desalination facility is now a successfully functioning entity - nothing could be further from the truth. Tens of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule, as of July 10, 2007, the Tampa Bay Desalination plant - the largest such entity in the U.S. - remains dysfunctional and commercially unproven. Sincerely, Owen
MIke wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:25 AM:Obviously many of the Commission's members are hell bent on trying to stop a necessary solution to ensure adequate future water supplies. We cannot afford the typical bureaucratic respose: lets spend millions of dollars and many man years "studying" the matter. And the concern that desalination will only promote more growth and development is a joke: that's been happening anyway. Governments can't resist the additional tax revenues from development.
GFN wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:17 AM:I'm with the Coastal Commission on this one. If water officials, who "desperately" want the Carlsbad seawater desalting plant to succeed because of drought worries, refuse to criticize Poseidon for not turning over requested information in the past, I will. This company has a history of suspicious behavior and concealing information that led to three years of problems with its Florida desal plant. While I do agree with Poseidon’s Vice President Peter MacLaggan statement, “There is a sense of urgency at play here due to the water supply situation in Southern California.”, the most important urgency to the residents of North County is the LONG-TERM effect this project will have on the environment. So, Mr. MacLaggan, quit holding up the project; give the commission the information they want and the project WILL move forward; if you keep stonewalling them, it may never get approved.
GFN wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:27 AM:Oh yeah, an aside to Bud Pocklington, who is board member for both the Water Authority and the South Bay Irrigation District that has agreed to buy some of the Carlsbad water Poseidon's plant would produce. Your statement that “"Most people know that there's actually staff on the Coastal Commission who are adamantly against desalination." applies to you too. You see, you are a board member of the Water Authority who is “adamantly FOR desalination; that’s why we have the Coastal Commission, to cool your jets for the long-term benefit and protection of ALL concerned.
Get out of the way! wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:57 AM:Commission needs to get out of their bureaucratic mindset and get this done. It has been long enough. It is a private company, if it has problems it is up to them to get them worked out. The Water Authority is dragging it's feet because it wants to retain its control and monopoly over the water we get. We pay them to deliver water, not complain about draughts, lack of water etc. We are not a 3rd world country. They are paid to bring us water no matter what. We could be dieing of thirst and they would all be sitting around patting themselves on the back on how good of job they are doing. This needs to get done now.
Carter; wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:14 AM:Reply to GFN: Poseidon is not Stonewalling - they are Flim Flaming.
What? wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:09 AM:Poseidens track record speaks for itself. The Tampa Bay facility still isn't running and it is way over budget. There have been multiple bankruptcies with the companies involved. I get the feeling that they are trying to make money with somebody elses money. There has been a number of stories about closeing the Encina Power plant. Where would that leave this project? Full disclosure is the only way to know what we are buying and what it is going to cost. We have one company trying to sell us on this idea that they can create a desal plant that will produce fresh water at a resonable cost. I am skeptical of this claim. If it can be done then more than one company can do it. I think we need to come up with a complete set of specs and put this out for bid. I suspect the cost of desalination is still higher than we are willing to pay.
Thirsty wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:24 AM:Unfortunately, Gig's story is so poorly written no one can understand what the coastal staff really wants. How is financial information about Poseidon relevant to the Coastal Commission and its duty to protect the coast? Why would Poseidon deny them all the data they have, Poseidon always knew they needed approval from the Coastal Commission and delay doesn't get the plant on line any faster. Read between the lines, this is mission creep by an out of control bureacracy. All the while, I'm getting more thirsty.
seapop wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:10 PM:Approve Posidons plans and get the plant built. The coastal commissions questions regarding the economics and/or contract agreements with other parties has nothing to do with the enviromental aspects of the plant which is all they should be looking at. If posidon can build a plant the will work and increase our water supply they should be allowed to do so.
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