By Andrew Christie, Conservation Committee
On Sept. 1, a major push for a regional ocean desalination project developed a hitch in its giddyup at the SLO County Board of Supervisors.
On the agenda for the meeting that day was what to do with the results of the four-year, $1.2 million regional desal feasibility study that had been delivered to the board. Desal’s environmental impacts were present and accounted for, but the show-stopper for the board was the “eye watering” (per Supervisor Bruce Gibson) price tag: Up to $24,000 per acre foot of water produced by a regional desal facility, ten times the current cost. Alternatives to desalination were briefly considered and summarily dismissed in several paragraphs of the 240-page study.
“Based on cost alone, the Board was clear that other means to augment water supplies – such as maximizing the use of recycled water – are more feasible solutions that need to be developed before desal is seriously considered,” said Supervisor Gibson after the meeting. “My guess is that any further consideration of desal isn’t likely for a decade or so.”
The report was received and filed with no action taken. As we go to press, the project remains on the County Public Works website, including the statement that “DESAL Plan partners will determine how to proceed with and fund Phase 2b [which] will require additional work such as detailed site analysis, engineering, environmental review, financial planning, and stakeholder outreach.”
The Sierra Club’s assessment of the feasibility study preceded the board’s realization that it should consider other means to augment water supplies. When the consultants hired to create the feasibility study were circulating a draft for public comment, we noted that the study should have included a full evaluation of alternatives such as conservation, low-impact development, water recycling, infrastructure improvements, efficiency, and stormwater capture and greywater within a systems watershed approach.
Ten years ago, the Board of Supervisors budgeted $900,000 to explore the idea of expanding operations of the small desalination facility at the aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to serve South County cities. Then they found out how much it would cost to construct the system of pipes necessary to pump desalinated water throughout the South County. (It was eye watering.)
The local history of desalination attempts has been long and troubled. During the brief life of the Diablo desal expansion plan, the Sierra Club suggested that the board acquaint itself with the Conservation and Open Space Element of the County’s General Plan, which affirms that “use of reclaimed water, interagency cooperative projects, desalination of contaminated groundwater supplies, and groundwater recharge projects should be considered prior to using imported sources of water or seawater desalination, or dams and on-stream reservoirs.”
Underscoring this point is General Plan Policy WR 1.15 - Desalination opportunities: "Support the expansion of desalination opportunities only if other new water sources are not feasible (e.g. increased efficiency and conservation, taking full allotments of existing surface water projects.)" When the County drafted and approved that policy, the planners knew that seawater desalination is the most expensive, energy-intensive, and potentially most environmentally destructive way to increase water supply. Planners were also aware of the history of desal in the U.S., which is littered with project costs significantly in excess of estimates and water deliveries significantly below promises.
The County maintains that it has been following the do-everything-else-before-desal policies of the General Plan while pursuing desal projects. The County’s actions in response to a lawsuit mandating the release of water from Lopez Dam contrast sharply with that claim.
The board has spent $800,000 in taxpayer money fighting a court order to release enough water from Lopez Lake to meet its obligation to protect endangered steelhead trout in Arroyo Grande Creek. As Los Padres Forestwatch has noted, "The County’s approach did not discuss how conservation efforts could reduce demand or how investments in groundwater recharge and other water supply augmentation projects could help secure long-term resilience. Instead of working toward forward-thinking solutions, the county is using steelhead protection as a scapegoat while ignoring the bigger issue of outdated, reactionary water management policies that put the region at greater risk. If the County truly wanted to address water security, it would be focusing on smart conservation, efficiency, and diversified water solutions...instead of fighting environmental protections."
Sounds like a plan.