A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 16, 2007
2. Supply
DESALINATION PLANT APPROVED:
Coastal Commission approves Carlsbad desal plant - North County Times
Poseidon plant nears OK; Desalination project needs another panel's approval - San Diego Union Tribune
Water rationing eyed; Conservation efforts advised - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
City proposes hikes to offset drought, improvement costs - San Bernardino County Sun
Editorial:
Guest Column: Environmentally Speaking: Conservation Pricing Could Be Cheaper in Long Run - Santa Clarita Signal
WATER BANKING PROJECCT:
New AVEK land deal sparks controversy - Antelope Valley Press
DESALINATION PLANT APPROVED:
Coastal Commission approves
By Gig Conaughton, staff writer
Even though the permit approval came with conditions ---- and commissioners will have to vote again in December or January to finalize the conditional approval - Poseidon Resources Inc. officials said the vote was a win for the project. Poseidon has studied building the $300 million plant with the city of
Noting that coastal commissioners ignored their staff's recommendation to reject the project, Poseidon Vice President Peter MacLaggan said, "I think we have to look at that as mission accomplished. We came here to get a coastal development permit, we're leaving with a coastal development permit.
"The good news," MacLaggan continued, "is we remain on track to get this project under construction in 2008 and in operation by 2010."
Commissioners said they want Poseidon to provide more information and specific plans about how the plant will minimize harm to marine life and offset the greenhouse gases it will produce.
The commission's approval seemed in serious doubt around 8 p.m. Thursday after nearly nine hours of testimony. Water officials, politicians and business groups supported the project, while environmental groups, including Coastal Commission staff members, said the project would hurt marine life more than Poseidon has predicted.
Some of the commission's 12 voting members said they sided with the agency's staff, noting that Poseidon officials from Poseidon Resources, Inc. - the private company that has studied building the $300 million plant since 2000 - had not provided enough information for the commission to act. Others said they worried about letting a private company control a water supply the public would rely upon, and criticized Poseidon for not turning over business information and environmental research about the plant because the company deemed it confidential.
"When (our) executive director cites lack of information, it makes it very difficult for me to vote for this," said commissioner Mike Reilly.
But others, including Commissioner Ben Hueso - a
Hueso said the commission should approve the plant, along with a confusing last-minute addition of 23 conditions, some added by commission staffers who recommended rejecting the project, and a number from Poseidon. Coastal Commission staffers said two of those conditions helped Poseidon by making the commission "abdicate" its authority to review and approve the steps Poseidon would have to take to ease harm to marine life and offset the greenhouse gases the plant would emit.
Commissioners eventually voted to reject the two conditions that would abdicate the agency's authority, added a number of the other conditions, and voted to OK the project provided Poseidon come back with the plans to address marine life and global warming concerns.
During severalS hours of public testimony before the commissioners' debate, an overwhelming number of people - mainly local water officials, politicians and business interests - lobbied the commission to approve the plant.
The plant, which needs the commission's approval, is proposed to be built at
However, the power plant's operators have said they plan to change to an air-cooled system and stop using the sea-water intake. Poseidon has permission from the power plant to continue to use the cooling system.
But commission staffers said they're uncomfortable with the continued use of the cooling system because it would kill marine life. That was a primary reason the commission staff recommended rejecting the plant.
Poseidon officials say the harm to marine life would be insignificant and have rejected Coastal Commission staff suggestions that the company use more expensive subsurface wells or offshore intakes to get the water they need. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/top_stories/01_07_0411_15_07.txt
Poseidon plant nears OK; Desalination project needs another panel's approval
By Michael Burge, staff writer
Although commissioners voted 9-3 to approve a proposal by Poseidon Resources to build a $300 million plant that could produce 100 million gallons of drinking water a day, few gave it a ringing endorsement.
Several said they would vote for the project as insurance against
“This just doesn't meet any of the tests” for issuing a coastal development permit, Commissioner Sara Wan said before voting against the proposal.
Commissioner Ben Hueso, a
After the meeting, Poseidon Senior Vice President Peter MacLaggan said he was pleased by the outcome.
“At the end of the day, the Coastal Commission was able to get their arms around a permit that's acceptable to them,” he said.
“They've asked us to come back with two things – more details on what our mitigation is going to look like and to make sure that we've got the right design.”
Surfrider Foundation member Todd Cardiff, a lawyer, said his organization would continue to oppose the plant.
“I think the Coastal Commission abdicated their responsibility today,” he said. “We're going to look at our legal options.”
More than 300 people – including a busload sent by the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce – packed the meeting room at Sheraton San Diego Hotel where the commission held its meeting. Many onlookers wore blue “got desal?” buttons.
For hours, speaker after speaker urged the commission to either reject or embrace Poseidon's proposal.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, state Sen. Christine Kehoe of
“We lack a drought-proof water supply,” Kehoe said. “Conservation is not enough.”
MacLaggan said the plant could satisfy 7 percent of
“Absent this project (
The Coastal Commission staff, which had recommended that the commission reject the project, said the project's environmental cost was too high.
“We clearly see that desalination is part of
Poseidon's project is coupled with the Encina Power Station, an electrical generating plant on
The power station, owned by NRG Energy, draws water from the lagoon to cool its steam-powered generators. Poseidon proposed tapping into that stream, forcing water through reverse-osmosis membranes to remove minerals, including salt.
Poseidon would draw 100 million gallons a day, process it, distribute 50 million gallons as drinking water and return the rest to the ocean, twice as salty as when it came out.
Power plants cooled by seawater have lost favor with the Coastal Commission because of the damage to marine life, however.
Encina can kill thousands of fish, fish eggs, larvae and plankton each year that are drawn into the plant's intake system. By tapping into the Encina cooling stream, the desalination plant would not significantly add to the deaths.
The power station, however, plans to replace its water-cooled generators with air-cooled generators over the next decade.
Poseidon would become the sole user of the lagoon intake and outfall system.
The commission imposed about 20 conditions on the coastal development permit it issued Poseidon.
The company must devise a plan to compensate for the deaths of marine organisms drawn into the plant and it would be required to do wetland habitat restoration work at Agua Hedionda Lagoon or elsewhere.
The company also would be required to spend $5 million over 30 years on environmental projects to offset greenhouse gases the plant would produce.
Poseidon President Walt Winrow said the company would spend $1 million immediately on reforestation programs and pay for restoring 40 acres in the San Dieguito Lagoon in Del Mar. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071116-9999-1m16desal.html
Water rationing eyed; Conservation efforts advised
By Will Bingham, staff writer
On Wednesday,
The two-member committee of the city's Community Services Commission said it would like to see residents reduce water consumption by 20 percent in five years.
Committee members said they would like to see the city mount a campaign to educate residents about ways to conserve water.
Water-rationing policies - such as limits on when residents can water their lawns - would be a last resort to be implemented if other measures do not reduce consumption, according to the committee.
"We may have to be more drastic, but for now let's start broad," Matranga said.
Any move to implement water-rationing policies or authorize city expenditures for mounting an education campaign would have to come from the council.
The council will discuss the issue no sooner than March, Carroll said.
Uncertainty of water sources has led to rationing policies being implemented this year in
Claremont Mayor Peter Yao and Councilman Sam Pedroza said that water-rationing policies are a possibility if drought conditions continue.
"At current conditions we're heading toward a mandatory situation," Pedroza said. "It's not a case of whether we have a choice. How we do it - we're going to have to start thinking about that."
Most Southern California cities receive a sizable portion of their water from
http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_7476120
City proposes hikes to offset drought, improvement costs
By Andrea Bennett, staff writer
Drought conditions coupled with expensive and much-needed improvements to infrastructure are contributing to the proposed increase. Other
Ken Jeske,
The rest is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District, which imports water from Northern California and the
"One of the largest items that goes into rates is the purchase of water," Jeske said. "That value is increasing, and it's expected to continue to increase."
Imported water prices are going up due to simple supply and demand, said Richard Atwater of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
"Because of the drought, you're going to have less supply, and the Metropolitan Water District has certain fixed costs and bonds to pay off,"
The dry season also has compelled agencies to try to drought-proof their water supplies.
Jeske said
These infrastructure improvements, along with replacing old pipe systems, are contributing to the proposed increases.
In just the next two years, about $60 million will be spent on
Cleaner water means higher rates as well, Jeske said.
As water quality standards tighten, more energy and chemicals are used to treat water, which is high in nitrates and dissolved salts from past agriculture in the area, he said.
But residents should still expect them to climb, he said.
"The cost of imported water will probably go up by 10 percent per year for the next couple of years because of the scarcity of water,"
One difference this go-around is the implementation of Proposition 218.
According to the proposition, if a majority of ratepayers protest a proposed rate change, the new rate can't be imposed.
Jeske said 62,000 notices of a public hearing Tuesday on the rate change have been sent out in the city.
As of Thursday, seven letters protesting the proposed new rates had been submitted to the city.
Many more are expected to be received before Tuesday's meeting. #
http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_7477075?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.com
Editorial:
Turning off the water while brushing your teeth, washing your face or shaving, filling the laundry machine all the way before doing a load, and taking shorter showers - all ways to conserve water.
These little things will go a long way right now because
Most of
Also, with climate becoming warmer and drier, we face two huge problems. The first is more rain and less snow. The snow stores the water naturally until it melts. Unfortunately, with the warmer , this snow becomes rain and also melts faster, leaving the levees unprotected and vulnerable to flooding.
The second problem is the threat of a drought. Droughts are a part of
Conserving the water is important. Even though, we can use the water from the back-up supplies to help control the water coming from the Delta, these supplies are limited and would not even be enough if a natural disaster occurred which is when we need them.
The plea for volunteer conservation of water should be taken seriously. Imagine getting in the shower turning the knob, and nothing comes out. That could easily happen if a natural disaster happened, or from just being careless.
There are several ways to conserve water. The American Water and Energy Savers lists 49 on their websites at
Let's remember that the water not only provides for our daily needs, but it is also a part of
Guest Column: Environmentally Speaking: Conservation Pricing Could Be Cheaper in Long Run
Santa Clarita Signal – 11/15/07
By Lynne Plambeck, president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, now celebrating its 20th year of service to the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as a member of the Newhall County Water District board of directors
Conservation pricing is a term generally used to describe a rate structure that encourages conservation by increasing the price of a commodity or service according to how much it is used. It is exactly the inverse of the bulk pricing discounts often used by businesses to encourage larger size lot orders and may seem counter-intuitive to someone looking at it from that viewpoint. Why would anyone want to decrease sales instead of increasing them?
But with limited resources, the impact on the environment and the capital cost of increasing production of the natural resources that provide us with our most basic necessities, such as water and energy, a conservation rate structure may cost everyone less in the long term.
The idea behind conservation pricing is to encourage the customer to use or buy less of a limited commodity that must be shared by the whole community and to encourage recognition of the cost of that commodity. It relies on a very simple and true analysis of human nature — the more that something costs, the more likely we are to value it and use it carefully.
Conservation pricing has been used for everything from garbage pickups to water rates in an effort to get consumers to reduce their use of a particular service. During the city of
Both Southern California Edison and the Gas Company have used conservation pricing for many years in an effort to give consumers a financial incentive to conserve energy.
The Gas Company uses a “baseline therm allowance” system. Usage over the baseline results in about a 15 percent increase in the rate per therm. According to the company’s Web site:
“‘Baseline therm allowances’ are the amounts of natural gas needed to meet the minimum basic needs of the average home. The Gas Company is required to bill these ‘baseline’ amounts at its lowest residential rates. The goal of these ‘baseline’ amounts is to encourage efficient use of natural gas.”
Both companies encourage consumers to use less energy and save money on their bills by buying energy-efficient appliances, changing to new energy-saving fluorescent bulbs and many other suggestions. And, of course, if they stay within their “baseline” their rate will be less as well.
Why would these companies, which sell electricity and gas, want everyone to use less, rather than the standard business model of the more a customer buys, the less it costs? I think we all know the answer. Natural gas and many energy sources (except solar and wind, of course) are not “renewable.” Building new generation plants and transportation facilities, such as pipelines and power lines, is expensive, no matter where the energy is coming from. The longer these companies can put off such expensive capital expenditures, the more we will all save. So again, encouraging everyone to use less energy through conservation pricing will save us all more in the end from not having to build expensive new facilities or purchase expensive new resources that may hurt the environment.
But conservation pricing does something else. In addition to bringing attention to the cost of using a product, it allows residents to have a way to keep their bills low. As water and energy become more and more expensive because of increasing demand, a conservation base rate allows families a way to keep bills lower by conserving. Such savings would not be available without tiered pricing. Instead, prices would be raised substantially across the board for everyone. Why would anyone want to eliminate this reward for conserving?
Water companies throughout the state use conservation pricing to try to get residents to “use water wisely.” As water becomes an even more limited commodity due to drought, such tiered pricing becomes more important to ensure that residents don’t waste water. It is a much gentler reminder than the enforced water rationing that may follow if we are not careful with our water resources.
Since most water is used on outside, ornamental landscaping, water companies have decided that conservation pricing is the best way to encourage the use of drought-tolerant, low-water-usage landscaping (just go to the Metropolitan Water District Web site to view some really beautiful examples of such plantings) and/or drip irrigation systems that reduce outdoor water use.
Our neighbor, the Department of Water and Power in
The cost of finding and importing more water from
So, in our valley, less will again result in more in the long term. If we can avoid importing more water because we are careful with what we already have, the bill will be lower for everyone. #
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=51736&format=html
WATER BANKING PROJECCT:
New AVEK land deal sparks controversy
By Alisha Semchuck, staff writer
PALMDALE - Another land deal is in the works at the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, but not all of the board members are on board with the arrangements for property that carries a $7.2 million price tag.
In closed session Tuesday night, the AVEK board directed General Manager Russ Fuller to pursue escrow contingent on a final title report and an engineering report on 1,455 acres of property owned by longtime Lancaster rancher Forrest Godde, said AVEK attorney Bill Brunick. The property stretches from Avenue A at the north to Avenue D at the south, and extends from 130th to 160th streets west.
When board members resumed open session, they voted 5-1 with one abstention on a motion to place the property into escrow provided the two contingencies fell into place.
Brunick stressed that AVEK needed to receive a title report showing the land to be clear of any liens as well as a written report from Boyle Engineering Corporation indicating that the site will function as a water bank.
"I'm totally against the lease agreement," said director Frank Donato, who abstained from the vote.
Donato considered the lease problematic on two levels - that it was included in the motion to enter into escrow on the property, making it part of the sales agreement, and that the lease fee is absurd, he said.
Godde would lease the land from AVEK for farming at a cost of $100 per year for the first two years and then have an option to renew the lease, again at $100 for the year.
The going rate for leasing farmland runs anywhere from $50 to $100 per acre in the
Donato called the lease agreement a "fraudulent gift of public funds (and) a sweetheart deal" that benefits Godde. Director Keith Dyas cast the single opposing vote, concurring that $100 a year for 1,455 acres of land didn't seem like a good deal for AVEK or for Valley taxpayers.
However, he pointed out, when the lease is formally presented to the board, it will have to be signed by a board member and not by the general manager as was the case with land the agency recently acquired west of Rosamond from onion and carrot farmer John Calandri - another situation that created some friction on the board.
Dyas questioned why AVEK had not sufficiently investigated the property before proceeding with plans for a purchase agreement.
Dyas and Donato asked why AVEK isn't first conducting a study of the property as recommended by the California Environmental Quality Act before offering to buy the land. CEQA is meant to identify significant environmental effects and either avoid or mitigate those factors whenever possible.
"AVEK performed no geophysical work and no soil boreholes to confirm" that characteristics of that soil would be capable of allowing water to percolate down to the depth of the water table, Dyas said.
He said he didn't want to see AVEK take the same approach with Godde as the agency did with Calandri. Based on surface soils at the Calandri site, Dyas said, "there might be portions of the property that could percolate water to a very shallow depth."
"Would you prefer CEQA (was) done first?" Donato asked Brunick.
"Yes," Brunick replied. "In a perfect world, yes."
"The majority of this board is going against the attorney's recommendation," Donato said.
Dyas acknowledged that AVEK "felt an urgency to buy the land because of concerns that it would not be available in the future.
"However, a prudent buyer would have solved that problem by simply purchasing an option to buy as Western Development and Storage did in their land acquisition." Western Development is in the process of starting a water bank west of Rosamond, and is working with Rosamond Community Services District and Semitropic Water Storage District.
Because AVEK did not choose to follow that route, Dyas said, "we're gambling not with our own money, but with the public's money. And it's not in reserve. We're borrowing and paying interest. We'll now have more than $20 million tied up in these two land purchases."
With $20 million of borrowed funds, Dyas said AVEK must pay interest in excess of "one-half million dollars a year." Yet the water agency will only be collecting a total of $200 for the leases with Calandri and Godde.
"This water banking situation clearly illustrates the contrast in how government operates versus private free enterprise. Private corporations like WDS must be cautious before investing their capital by conducting thorough due diligence. If they don't, then their corporation will fail," he said.
"Governmental agencies like AVEK can afford to be less cautious with public funds because, if their project fails, they can simply raise taxes or water rates to generate new funding," he said.#
http://avpress.com/n/15/1115_s9.hts
####
No comments:
Post a Comment