Desalinization....

**Darian** · 09-25-2012, 02:39 PM

The SacBee reported that desalinization, long thought to be a major solution in CA, is not working out that way. Check out the article:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/22/484...for-calif.html

The gist of the article is that it is more cost effective to continue to use water diversion, transmission, storage, storage and recycling in combination with conservation measures as a system. The target water use cited appears to be for local government and individual users. Apparently, this combination of measures has resulted in a reduction of demand for water. No mention of agricultural/developer use of water. Part of the cost/benefit calculation includes objections to DeSal by conservation/environmental groups.

In general, I'm a supporter of DeSal for no other reason than it is the only real solution that offers the potential to save the Delta from the implementation of the massive BDCP.

**OceanSunfish** · 09-25-2012, 09:58 PM

"cost effective"?!

As far as I'm concerned, if 'you' decide to develop/live an area that has no natural source of freshwater, you should expect to pay a premium for freshwater.... and if that includes the cost for DeSal, then so be it....

**Darian** · 09-26-2012, 09:38 AM

Certainly understand how you feel. Cost of DeSal is very high and increasing over time. Local governments (spell that decision makers) don't have a lot of money to spend. So, they tend to use cost/benefit analysis as an excuse not to do something. Even the state can't afford major infrastructure projects any longer. It does seem as though there are options here. Such as a joint powers authority or public private partnership to improve the chances for approval by spreading out the costs (I'd bet that they've already considered it). Of course, a local decision maker would have to consider whether the cost of the current water delivery system (maybe not yet paid for) is worth abandoning to commit to a new DeSal system.

The costs of freshwater delivery to end users is so out of whack, now, that changing it is not probable. Imagine having a source of running surface water in your back yard but being unable to deliver to land in your geographical area. Then having the feds/state build storage (dams), diversion, transport facilities at taxpayer costs. Selling that water in that system to downstream users by contract at prices far below market value who, then can resell surplus water to other downstream users at massive profits. I can't see the water purveyors or big-ag users supporting it. They won't even pay for cleaning up the mess they create thru run-off of polluted water. Their reasoning, it's not cost-effective.

**Tracy Chimenti** · 09-26-2012, 09:12 PM

I'll tell the story again... you guys may have forgotten, so here's the abridged version...

During an open house tour of a Santa Barbara desal plant, one of the senior engineers of the trucked-in facilities told me that de-sal was at the time, slightly more expensive than project water, and with coming technology improvements, it was likely to be cheaper. The plant and another one were mothballed, as the 90's drought was now over. I believe it was 1-12 to 2-years post-drought. Both plants could produce 10,000 a/ft per year. The engineer seemed sympathetic to our little group from Nor-cal, which included my mothe-in-law and father-in-law who were always suspicious of my rantings about water exports. Being farmers, they were very traditional, conservative, and held the view that us whiners were probably commie rats bent on destroying America. It was great to have the engineer say that... their jaws dropped. It was true!

Relating to the expense side of de-sal, Jamie Lyle, the stunt man that did the fishing scenes in "River Runs Through It", made the point at one of our TU dinners that fish and fishing are strictly metaphoric, and has no footing alongside commerce, therefore cannont compete with it. Well it is true, and like he said, we have to protect the metahor, for without it, what is life?!

Really, what would life be like without healthy, beautiful runs of salmon and steelhead?

To me the metaphor is worth the price.

**bart** · 10-13-2012, 09:20 AM

One of the major problems with desal is the salt and what or where do you do with it.

**Darian** · 10-13-2012, 07:28 PM

with the by-products of DeSal

Actually, there're are quite a few solutions to this "problem" already in use and many under consideration. Some are better than others and, as you might expect, the US regulates the process more than other countries. I've read that Saudi Arabia gets approximately 50% of their drinking water from DeSal. I'm sure that their experience with disposal/use of the by-products would be enlightening....

Here's a link to a paper on the subject of by-products of DeSal:

http://www.mickleyassoc.com/disposal.html

As indicated in the full paper, the technology has advanced, making it more feasible/reasonable but costs remain high in the US. Of course, thermal DeSal has been in place in the US (and elsewhere) for a long time. For example, the salt evaporation ponds in the south bay where sea water is spread out over a marshy area and allowed to evaporate, leaving salts to recover for commercial sale/use.

**Darian** · 11-17-2012, 05:38 PM

Maybe the SacBee was premature in its reporting that DeSal is not working out as a component of a Water Resource Management System (RMS). The Department of Water Resources is working on developing a public document that describes such a plan. Check out the link to the report:

http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/do...2012-11-13.pdf

Keep in mind that this is a document that's in the process of development. The DWR is accepting comments/input from stakeholders who have something to contribute. If you're inclined, now is your chance to try to influence the development of this policy. In reading this draft, I note that the only application that's being advanced is that of using DeSal techniques for providing new water supplies to local communities. I'd like to see DWR staff contemplate using DeSal techniques for removal of salts from agricultural use/run-off. I know it's been considered in the past but this is a chance to get DWR to commit to include DeSal as a component in the water RMS for agricultural use/run-off.

**Larry S** · 11-19-2012, 11:54 AM

The proposed Poseiden plant @ Carlsbad is still just that; after jumping thru countless hoops and getting
approval from even the almighty Cal Coastal Comm. Some so-called environmentalists keep building
new roadblocks. Don't these kooks understand the the impact of bringing water from the north? The true cost
of water would factor in lots of these impact issues; making DeSal water look like a necessary thing. This, and the MLPA's,
don't help one's blood pressure

**Darian** · 11-19-2012, 09:48 PM

Amazing isn't it??? In order to stop a DeSal solution from implementation, people would sacrifice the Delta. At some point, an overall view of all of these projects, impacts and costs has to emerge. Not sure I know what/who it takes, tho. I'm absolutely sure that politico's have no answers as they could've already chose to lead by acting as an honest broker for planning, coordination and construction of all of these solutions but haven't. It seems the state has all of it's eggs in a single basket and that's being filled with $$$$$$$ by San Joaquin valley grower/water interests....