dave from oceanside wrote on Apr 8, 2008 1:03 PM:We are in desperate need of the water, only a fool would oppose this operation.
If it has problems down the road with quality or efficiency of the operation we get together and fix it.
We can only win by moving down this path of desalination.
On the lighter side if the salt content goes up in the ocean you won't need a life preserver anymore.

saltwater hurts fish? wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:39 AM:How will putting the salt from the saltwater back in the ocean "harm ocean life"? Once again, Surfrider and the Coastal Commission have no science to back up their fear mongering.

Ridiculous! wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:45 PM:Only a fool would prematurely approve a project prior to the environmental issues being resolved.

Derik wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:17 PM:Delays such as these are the primary reason that forced the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)to spend billions to find groundwater in the valleys 400 miles north of Las Vegas. The SNWA has the sense not to risk the well-being of 2 million people while agency incompetents waste precious time and money by stalling viable and essential projects.

H2OChemist wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:41 PM:How long does it take the Coastal Commision to do their job? A decade? A century?
The rest of humanity has known about this project for years. Will it impact the environment? Of course it will. Will it impact less than diverting the entire Colorado River to southern California? I would think so. This is not the first Desal project on earth.
Coastal Commision, do your job!!!

RDC wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:45 PM:It's sad that people in this area are not looking at he whole picture. This Desal plant is a win win for all involved. When the power plant is decommissinoned can you guess what will happen? The lagoon on the West and East side of Interstate 5 will turn in to one giant mud pit no more water sports, Why? because it's in Edison's contract to dredge the lagoon to keep it open so that water can flow in and out. This keeps the natural process going. If you stop the dreging in about a one year time you will have a giant mud pit that can not be used for anything. Boy I can only think what that smell might be like for the homes near the lagoon, Milloin dollar views and million dollar smell, What a awesome thought.. I would have to guess the Desal plant will have a contract as well for dredging the lagoon they would have to. It's a win win people, get a grip. So it makes the Surf Rider foundation mad hell, How mad will you be when Southern California dries up. "Hey the water taste like salt" How did we let that happen? I am all for the Desal Plant, anything that brings water to Southern California to help us out is a plus!

standby wrote on Apr 11, 2008 5:19 AM:Several news articles on seawater desalination reveal
that desalination technology is little understood by
most journalists, local water managers, politicians
and environmental groups. In searching for
renewable potable water or supplementing current
sources few are aware that there is more than one
desalination technology.

When evaluating a desalination project Reverse Osmosis
is typically the process considered. Yet, there is a
viable and proven alternative in distillation with lower costs.
The Advanced Vapor Compression Desalination
Process is an advanced and highly environmentally
friendly desalination process, an alternative, single
performance, and lower maintenance process compared to
Reverse Osmosis. The system is based on proven
flash distilling principles but features an innovative,
highly efficient, and compact design. Additionally,
it offers a unique advantage in the treatment of salt byproducts.
The system produces outputs of either valuable crystalline
Salt or concentrated brine. The process is optimized for
the desalination of seawater drawn from wells below the
sea floor and not returning the brine to the sea.

The process has modular abilities and can be expanded
to meet future requirements in water demand or
designed and built at the start for higher volume. A
basic plant design can operate on solar, thermal,
nuclear or traditional energy sources. Each unit is
optimized from an initial engineering site study to
account for different environmental and structural
needs. A basic stand-alone unit of 1 acre-foot per day
has a footprint of approximately thirty feet in
diameter. The larger the plant water volume the lower
the cost is per acre-foot. The plant energy
consumption is on the order of about 4 to 20 kw per
1000 gallons produced based on the design, volume
produced and type of energy.

The system can also be used in industrial treatment
and recovery of effluent water. The life cycle of the
plant is based on a 25 year time line which can be
extended through proper preventable maintenance and overhaul.

Dave wrote on May 5, 2008 10:36 PM:This situation is a question of balancing pro's and con's. On one side there is the water resource problem we face as a species (not just as californians). The other side of the issue is the unnavoidable and non mitigational affects this project poses on the environment. I understand we must do something about our water situation, with that said perhaps more education of all pro's and cons is appropiate. This plant will help or increasing and innefecient water supply system woe's; however, it is going to significantly affect all fauna and flora in the existing environment.
A couple of the earlier comments seem not to addres both sides of this issue. We should come together and form a more appropiate and constructive exchange of information in this manner. I have attempted to approach this issue form an aspect as unbias as possible.

Thank You

Question: Does anyone know if this project falls under CEQA or NEPA and what are some design alternatives?