Ride the desalination wave
By: ROBERT L. SIMMONS - commentary | ∞
On the heels of the California Coastal Commission's approval of the Carlsbad Desalination Project, opponents of seawater desalination are making a desperate, last-ditch effort to derail the project by filing a lawsuit yet again. It is an all-too-common tactic of certain radical elements of the environmental movement to abuse the legal process by filing endless frivolous lawsuits trying to stop beneficial projects they oppose.
But when it comes to assaults on this Carlsbad project, it is time for those of us with long roots in the environmental movement to deplore this foolish and wasteful obstructionism and question whose interests these few people are serving.
The Carlsbad Desalination Project has undergone considerable expert scrutiny ---- and rightfully so. A water supply project of this magnitude must be turned upside down and inside out to ensure that the environment and public interests are being protected. This project has secured a favorable certified environmental impact report and permits from the California Department of Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission.
Throughout the past decade, this project has withstood multiple lawsuits and regulatory agency appeals by the same few opponents who now refuse to accept the Coastal Commission's decision that this facility will protect the environment and is, therefore, consistent with the Coastal Act.
By filing another hopeless lawsuit, these non-expert activists blindly ignore the years of research and study by scientific experts that have been relied upon by every permitting and regulatory agency that has approved this project.
Why do they do this? Because these side-stream activists hope to remain politically relevant by intentionally crossing the line that separates environmental advocacy from obstructionism. To my mind, it is the same as knowing you have lost the war but are fighting on to save face. Like the general who sacrifices lives of his soldiers out of personal pride, these anti-desalination people seek to deprive all of us of a new potable water supply that is large, pure, reliable and sorely needed.
By continuing our nearly-total dependence on imported water, we inevitably risk severe ecological damage to the sources of this water and the loss of much of the water itself. Therefore, reducing our dependence on imported water is both good water policy and good environmental policy.
We desperately need to remove the stranglehold that outside water exporters have had on us for so many years. We cannot do it with conservation and recycling alone. But by combining those measures with the new water the Carlsbad Desalination will supply, we can achieve the water independence that I and many others have worked so hard to win.
Robert L. Simmons is the former chief trial counsel of the San Diego Sierra Club.
More Stories
Advertisement
Lets look at the detractors: wrote on Feb 7, 2008 8:17 PM:If Council Member Sanchez is opposed to it, this must be a good idea. I suppoprt the new RO plant
That's a good one wrote on Feb 7, 2008 9:41 PM:I can see why this guy is ex-council for Sierra Club. He has lost his sense of place and care for the world. The activists opposed this because the studies regarding the environment were incomplete. This project must show that it will not permanently harm the shore and marine resources. So far they haven't done that.
cost wrote on Feb 8, 2008 6:49 AM:Desal water is going to drive the cost of living in san diego up at the same time there is major inflationary pressure. It is a solution with ugly byproduct consequences. It will hit our pocketbooks.
WHAT? wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:33 AM:there is no such thing as "Chief Trail Counsel of San Diego Sierra Club" This is a plant.
Dave wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:35 AM:You cant have your Cake and eat it too
You cant save the Delta smelt, Mono lake, Share the colorado river water and have a population. Our economy depends on groth. If we stop issuing water meter permits, and stop all construction we will certainly go into a recession or depression.
Or we could outlaw golf cources, car washes and farming and stop issuing water meters.
DownwithSierra wrote on Feb 8, 2008 10:42 AM:Wow, what a blow to the Sierra Club. It takes one to know one. Simmons hit these enviromental extortionists head on.
We know Bob wrote on Feb 8, 2008 10:43 AM:Yes, he used to be Sierra Club's attorney, and a professor at USD. Unfortunately, he hasn't done his homework on this one. It's sad to see someone winding down in his own life/career fall prey to the petty BS of those whom he fought for so long. If these suits are frivolous, why are they so often successful? Didn't they say the same thing about Prof. Simmons' lawsuits over SD's 301(h) waiver? Come on Bob, dig a little deeper. Is it really worth killing billions of marine critters before we implement even the most basic of outdoor conservation measures? Give me a breaki.
BD wrote on Feb 8, 2008 10:45 AM:Even us environmentalists shower every now and then. We need the water!
responsibledesal wrote on Feb 8, 2008 11:40 AM:As a law professor I'm sure Mr Simmons has instructed his students to carefully review the facts and the law before they make ridiculous statements. He should follow that advice. The public, including the environmental organizations Mr Simmons attacks, are simply arguing for a desalination facility that is designed with available technology to protect our precious marine life -- a legal mandate. To imply this is "frivolous" means he hasn't read the law. And to suggest this is anything like recklessly sending our soldiers to death is OVER THE TOP. Take it back and apologize for your ridiculous accusations.
Derek wrote on Feb 8, 2008 2:12 PM:At $2000 per acre-foot or 6/10 of a cent per gallon of desalinated water, it would cost about 25 cents to take a shower. Thats right, a whole quarter! Every day!
dave from oceanside wrote on Feb 8, 2008 3:28 PM:Any fish caused harm by this process will probable use the ACLU to sue Poseidon.
Then all these wealthy fish will be buying and piloting around expensive submarines, causing more pollution in our oceans which will kill more of the poor fish who didn't get in on the lawsuit.
I say kill off, what did the above the poster say oh yah "billions and billions" of the fish that are too dumb to move and the rest will survive somewhere else.
Fish Family wrote on Feb 8, 2008 9:52 PM:Darn right I will use the ACLU to sue Poseidon. Every scale on my body tells me that this project is wrong for the site right now. Until modern technology can assure me and my family a safe water environment, I will pursue my options to sue. That's my right as an American fish. Read the Constitution.
Being Used wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:16 AM:Those that believe that you are only looking for a "safe" desalinization plant, or that you only want the issue fully "studied" are just being used by the radical environmentalists who are opposed to adding to any frustum improvements because they believe it will lead to more development. This is the REAL goal they are working for, whether they realize it, or vocalize it, or not. It won't matter how many reports are done or how much studying is done, these groups will oppose this project, or any other project, to the very end. Slowing the addition of new development, along with adding to infrusture, is the only way quality of life will improve. To just stop the infrastructure without limiting development is dooming us to all live with the traffic and lack of resources we have now, not to mention the state of these things in 20 or 30 years if we don't plan for it now. There is a middle ground that makes a lot of sense, and Mr. Simmons and a number of the people who formerly ran these environmental groups should be applauded as they realize this is the case. It's call being realistic.
Bob wrote on Feb 11, 2008 9:52 AM:Chief Trial Counsel to the Sierra Club?
What???? Is he kidding????
NC Times needs to understand who they're publishing when they print these 'stories'.
... It's really amazing the lengths big business will go to for profits.
And it's really sad, because if they spent a few million more to set up proper intake, the fish would be protected. They were able to do it in Australia when they set up shop there. How come Poseidon can't do it here?
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