Desalination is not the answer

[SHRED]

A recently approved Poseidon desalination plant in Carlsbad was originally estimated to cost around $250 million; now it is nearly a $1 billion project. The water to be produced at the plant costs 4 to 8 times more than other water sources such as groundwater or recycled water. And rate payers are bound to a 30- year contract to buy the water.
Desalination may be one of the tools that water agencies and the public choose to pursue in the future but not before fully exploring and adopting the less expensive and proven options such as promoting water use efficiency, or funding the expanded use of recycling systems such as the Ground Water Replenishment System in Fountain Valley. The system takes highly treated wastewater that would have been discharged into the ocean and purifies it at a very affordable rate. In fact, the cost of water, per acre-foot, produced at the replenishment system costs one-third of what distributed water produced from a desalination plant would cost.

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/news/blog/2013/03/desalination_destroys_environment_and_isnt_quick_fix_southern_californias_water


Here's a response I give to teabaggers and other ignorant people. ...

Rooftop rainwater collection, grey water use, drip irrigation, low flow shower, toilet, and washing machines are all part of "individual responsibility". You know the old saying "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" that gets thrown around when referring to others. Taking these measures will do more than any costly and environmentally harmful desalination plant ever could plus with the added bonus of reducing us ratepayers from the ever increasing water bill. Time to stop defending the ripoff centralized public/corporate "partnership" supplier and stand on our own two feet.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. The fact that we're arguing about water...

...distresses me.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Taking these steps is noble and gives the impression of making a difference...

... but the reality is that individuals and households consume only a tiny fraction of the total water used.

This gives you an idea:

Public supply refers to water withdrawn by public and private water suppliers that provide water to at least 25 people or have a minimum of 15 connections. Public-supply water is delivered to users for domestic, commercial, and industrial purposes. Part of the total is used for public services, such as public pools, parks, firefighting, water and wastewater treatment, and municipal buildings, and some is unaccounted for because of leaks, flushing, tower maintenance, and other system losses. Domestic deliveries represent the largest single component of public-supply withdrawals.

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuto.html

Conserving is always a good idea, but collecting gray water and rain water harvesting have far less impact than reshaping thermoelectric power and irrigated agriculture.

[SHRED]

3. Thanks for this!

I still think that personal steps I mentioned could more than offset the 7% desal would provide at a premium cost.

You're bigger picture is well taken however.

[Buzz Clik]

4. We certainly agree that personal conservation is far better than desalinization.

[mackdaddy]

5. But "Public" use of the water supply in less than 12% of total water used.

Something tells me that they are the ones who will end up paying for all of the outrageously expensive desal water. While the industrial and irrigation will still be getting the "old" prices.

Maybe using 80% of the available fresh water for energy and irrigation are not sustainable any more. And maybe the current water prices for these uses are also not representative any more.

How we live both individually and as an industrial society are different when we have an over abundance of a resource, and a scarcity of that resource.