Questions pile up for Carlsbad desal plant
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
Control board again raises environmental concerns | ∞
For the second time in three months, a government agency has raised environmental concerns about a plan to take seawater out of the ocean off Carlsbad and turn it into drought-proof drinking water.
And for the second time, the agency in question has already approved, albeit conditionally, the desalinization plant.
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the region's water-pollution police force, is the latest agency to raise environmental concerns about the Carlsbad plant.
In a recent letter, the control board said it wanted more information about how the plant would minimize harm to fish and the environment ---- 21 months after the board awarded the plant a discharge permit.
In November, the California Coastal Commission awarded the plant a permit, on the condition that its backers, Poseidon Resources Inc., answer more questions about the same subjects.
Environmental groups last week immediately said the control board's action proved environmental worries were valid, and that agencies were moving too quickly to conditionally approve the plant.
"It's absurd to us that any agency could pre-approve a project of this magnitude without having this information already tied down," said Marco Gonzalez, an environmental lawyer active in the Surfrider Foundation, which has sued to overturn the commission's permit approval.
Poseidon downplayed the ongoing questions.
Poseidon Vice President Peter MacLaggan said the company has legitimate plans to ease environmental harm, and that all questions would be answered in coming months.
"What I take away from all of this is we haven't done a very good job of explaining our story," MacLaggan said. "That's what has prompted the questions."
Big project
If the $300 million, 50 million-gallon-per-day Carlsbad plant is built, it would be the largest seawater desalinization plant in the Western Hemisphere.
Poseidon said late last year that it hoped to start building this year and open by 2010.
Last week it said that that timeline had changed to building in 2009 and opening by 2011 but that the change had nothing to do with the continuing environmental questions.
Tom Luster, the coastal commission's seawater desalination expert, said there were as many as 20 other desalination projects in the works that could eventually seek their own permits.
Drama
The plant's fate, and the permitting process, are part of an important water-supply drama.
Desertlike Southern California has long relied upon imported water: from the Colorado River, and from Northern California's State Water Project.
But both of those supply systems are troubled.
The Colorado River has suffered eight years of drought. And Southern Californians are facing cuts to their Northern California supplies by up to 30 percent for the foreseeable future because of a federal court ruling to protect an endangered fish, the delta smelt.
Water officials around the state ---- and Poseidon ---- say that seawater desalinization would be an important new supply and could never hurt the ocean because its immense volume of water would dilute harmful effects.
Environmental groups disagree and say such plants could destroy California's coast.
Gonzalez said last week that that means that permitting agencies should take every step to make sure they recognize all the possible environmental harm Poseidon's plant could cause and how to address those problems ---- to "get it right the first time."
Intake worries
Most of the plant's environmental questions revolve around how it will get the seawater it will turn into drinking water.
The proposed plant would be located at Carlsbad's Encina Power Station, and use the power station's "once-through-cooling" system.
Encina already sucks in millions of gallons of water from the sea, pumps it around its electricity-producing turbine engines to cool them, and then spits it back out to the ocean.
Poseidon planned to use 304 million gallons of that a day to force through high-tech filtering membranes.
Fifty million gallons a day would be turned into drinking water. The rest, including the extracted brine, would be sent back to sea.
However, NRG Energy, the company that operates Encina, has applied to move to an air-cooled process by 2010 because a recent court case and studies say ocean-cooling systems hurt ocean life, killing fish, vegetation, and microscopic life.
Poseidon has a deal to continue to use the existing sea intake and outfall system. But environmental groups have said that should not be allowed.
As he has in the past, MacLaggan said last week that the plant would only kill about 2 1/2 pounds of fish per day and some phytoplankton, fish larvae and other microscopic organisms. He said the company plans to offset that harm by creating 37 acres of new wetland habitat in a joint San Dieguito River Valley program.
Control board questions
But the control board said Feb. 19 that it didn't like the San Dieguito plan.
Control board officials said that even though they granted the Carlsbad plant a discharge permit in June 2006, Poseidon would violate that permit and risk fines if it built the plant and started operating it before satisfying the control board's questions.
Eric Becker, a control board engineer, said the agency wants Poseidon to create new wetlands or other environmental habitat in Carlsbad's Agua Hedionda Lagoon ---- which is where the Encina plant's cooling system is situated ---- not San Dieguito.
MacLaggan said there isn't anywhere in Agua Hedionda to do that.
Meanwhile, the control board's executive director, John Robertus, said Poseidon's 37-acre offset plan amounted to a one-time $5 million purchase to offset unforeseen environmental harm over at least 30 years.
Robertus said that wasn't good enough. Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, he said, has had to pay upward of $100 million in recent years because of environmental harm it caused.
"I'd rather have mitigation that is ongoing and dynamic," Robertus said last week.
MacLaggan said the $5 million cap was misleading.
"We would not put a financial cap on our commitment," he said. "We were not saying that's all we're willing to spend. What we said was the harm would be more than fully compensated at 37 acres."
Luster and the commission also have questions about the 37-acre plan.
In a letter sent to Poseidon last week, Luster said the commission needed more information about Poseidon's environmental studies.
The letter said the commission could not tell how Poseidon determined creating the 37 acres would offset the fish and larvae the plant would kill. Because of that, the letter said, the commission could not judge whether the 37 acre-plan was adequate.
MacLaggan said Poseidon hoped to answer all the questions from the control board, the commission and a third agency ---- the state Lands Commission ---- by midsummer and finalize all of its needed permits.
The state Lands Commission, like the Coastal Commission, wants more information about how Poseidon will offset the greenhouse gases the plant will emit.
"This is just all just part of the process, outlined by the regulators who need to methodically work through this," MacLaggan said.
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Nick wrote on Mar 3, 2008 7:34 AM:This is just another ploy to milk more money than is required to pay for enviornmental offsets not even caused by the new Desal Plant. We should have had a Desal Plant 20 years ago, but as usual our leaders don't actually have any foresight. They would rather wait until they can actually see the flames from the fire before they acknowledge that there really is a fire!-
Ed wrote on Mar 3, 2008 8:52 AM:We are currently damaging the environment in the central valley and colorado river by removing water - plus the additional damage of a large transportation infrastructure.
Better to not damage things hundreds of miles away - keep our water sources and associated environmental damage local.
Dean wrote on Mar 3, 2008 8:59 AM:Are these green people nuts? The power plant has been operating for as long as I can remember and our environment has not suffered. What we need is a dependable source or water. Who elected these regulators? Oh, you mean they are appointed by the politically correct.
Herb: wrote on Mar 3, 2008 9:16 AM: It appears that several civil service organizations are not talking to each other. Our major problems in this remote area of California, San Diego County water source wise, are over population according to the water supply and the natural, cyclic, warming up of the earth that is depriving us of badly needed water. Fish is not on my menu but about once a month. Perhaps that is to little, but as you can see water is of major concern to me while fish are not. Another concern of mine, and I kid you not, is doing business with persons and companies from the north east of the USA. It is not a dislike of them that is causing my distrust. I was born and raised there. But, for some reason every time one of our small towns become involved in a business deal with people from that local it turns out that we are being taken to the cleaners. To counter this it would behoove us to keep all the business of supplying water in the area where it can be controlled. Furthermore, there are good companies in CA that can handle the job very well. Of course, overzealous judges are another matter. It is strange that they would like fish better than they like people. Maybe it is because they are strange and bare watching. The truth is that all the water we have received in this first part of 2008 has done little to put down a lack of water projection during the next few years since our water comes from way up north and way out east. (We don't know how to control our rain run off water.) if we were to get the civil service organizations and the judges together I can here the judges now saying, The law is clear on this matter. The answer to that is change the law!
Olaf wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:44 AM:They (environmentalist) complain that water is running out and destroying the lagoons and deltas up North... they complain that the colorado river is drying up... and now complaints about fish in the intake of an area where we have already been intaking water.
So my question is then, where do we stop? People and the government are trying to get usable water to an area that doesn't get a lot. these entities need to stop blocking every solution to help society. I know that man has ruined the world but either figure out a solution or get out of the way. Desal plants have been in Saudi Arabia for a long time, they work, let the citizens of SD county find water for themselves.
Ed G wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:14 AM:The problem is the Environmental activists are loading up these regulation agencies, boards etc with fellow believers. This causes nothing but delays and no balanced views. They have already cut our water from the North now they want to limit our own water production. Not sure what the payoff for them is while doing this but it doesn't make a lot of sense. To really help the environment they should head South across the border.
john wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:26 AM:This plant is too expensive, its water is too expensive, and it will harm air and water quality, all to out a few bucks in the pockets of the developers, their lobbyists, and the politicians.
AResident wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:45 AM:If everyone is so concerned. Why is nothing being done about the sewage coming from Mexico?
Johnny_R. wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:46 AM:Kudos to Surfrider Foundation for having the courage to fight this fight. What the commenters above fail to note is that there are responsible ways to do desalination which involves placing the intake under the ocean floor. To answer Ed G's question, the "payoff" for "Environmental activists" is an ecosystem that isn't destroyed. Instead of sticking your heads in the sand, stick Poseidon's intake pipe in the sand.
To John wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:48 AM:Not true. Currently we have a monopoly called the Metropolitian Water Board that controls all water. That is partially why we are in the mess we are in. If private industry was controlling the water you can bet we would have it. The De-sal plant would be in competition with the water board and would have to charge rates accordingly. Get off the environuts WEB sites and research yourself. This is a good thing and should move forward ASAP.
seapop wrote on Mar 3, 2008 1:26 PM:Its time to shoot the enviromental bureaucrats and get the plant built. Way to many "what if" chicken little actions by these over paid people. Also what the heck does a desal plant have to do with surfing. Why is the "surfrider" foundation sticking its nose in other to capture more unwarrented legal fees.
To Johnny_R wrote on Mar 3, 2008 1:28 PM:from Ed G. You should ... realize our environment needs fresh water also. Growth will not stop, thus water consumption will not stop. If you are looking for utopia look in China I think they are very concerned with their environment. In the meantime people need water. Again, they have blocked it from the North, we are damaging the Colorado River we need water. No better place then the ocean.
Johnny_Royale wrote on Mar 3, 2008 1:51 PM:Desalination is an inevitability given our water crisis. What isn't inevitable is this type of desal. Again, more responsible desal can be and is being done. -
Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 3, 2008 2:59 PM:It's too bad that some in the environmental community have done so much to destroy the environmental message. It's hard to take anything they say seriously, especially when talking about such a critical issue such as water. I'm all for protecting the environment and using the smartest desal solution available. Just don't put so much red tape on it that it won't happen. -
Rick wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:21 PM:Don't continue to provide water and the problem (people) will move away. Same with gasoline, stop providing and the problem (people) will minimize driving. There are no problems except us.-
Janet wrote on Mar 3, 2008 4:02 PM:And the complaints about environuts continue while the water keeps running down the streets. My neighbor has an acre of grass and waters every day. Nevada put teeth in their water restrictions. Our water agencies just suggest. As long as water is cheap and readily available, people will keep wasting it. No matter how many desal plants you build, people will keep coming because this area is intensely pro-development. If it weren't, why approve huge new developments while telling us we are running out of water? Really, you can't have it both ways. Not enough water? Moratorium on new meters. Or force people to conserve so we can have more development.
Nick wrote on Mar 3, 2008 5:46 PM:To Kohnny R: Newsflash, the intake pipe is already in place. That's what feeds the power plant. Most Desal plants are built adjoining a power plant and use the water that they return back. You need to stop listening to all the Surfrider propaganda.
Look around us wrote on Mar 4, 2008 6:30 AM:While so many are talking about what a bad idea Poseidon is, we should take a closer look at what is happening around us. The Regional Water Board ignores contamination issues in our AQUIFERS, leaves cleanup alone so that hot spots can continue to add dangerous contamination into our waterways, but they can put a thumbs-down on Poseidon. It is so very sad to see that our neighbors to the south have many Poseidon desal plants in operation and there's a plan afoot that will add wastewater reclamation next door to them and stop using the Colorado River water (of course they will SELL their water rights for big bucks) and that new project is NEVAGUA. -
Reardon wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:40 AM:We need to have alternate delivery systems for alternate water -- that way the eco-nuts could have only rainwater from cisterns. Further they could be removed from all electrical grids and could provide their own solar/wind power, and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the remainder of the terrible Colorado River Water, the Desal plant, etc. I further hope all of the eco-nuts buy electric cars, which they charge from their home solar systems, thereby reducing the demand on gasoline, lowering the price, and ...I favor win-win...
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
Videos
Advertisement