1 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT A California Perspective Heather Cooley, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary Wolff JUNE 2006

2 DE S W ITH A GRAIN OF S ALT ALINATION, A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE JUNE 2006 © Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved ISBN: 1-893790-13-4 ISBN-13: 978-1-893790-13-1 P acific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security 654 13th Street, P reservation P ark Oakland, California 94612 www.pacinst.org P hone 510-251-1600 Facsimile 510-251-2203 Editor Ian Hart Designer Bryan Kring, Kring Design Studio, Oakland, CA Copy Editor Joe Sadusky, Kring Design Studio, Oakland, CA Printing Alonzo P rinting Co., Inc., Hayward, CA


4 ABOUT THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE II ABOUT THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE Founded in 1987 and based in Oakland, California, the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security is an independent, nonprofit organization that provides research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of sustainable development, environmental protection, and international security. The Pacific Institute strives to improve policy through solid research and consistent dialogue with policymakers and action-oriented groups, both domestic and international. By bringing knowledge to power, we hope to protect our natural world, encourage sustainable development, and improve global security. This report comes out of the Institute’s Water and Sustainability Program. More information about the Institute, staff, directors, funders, and programs can be www.pacinst.org and www.worldwater.org . found at

5 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE III ABOUT THE AUTHORS Heather Cooley Gary Wolff Heather Cooley is a Research Associate in the Water Gary Wolff, P.E., Ph.D., is Principal Economist and and Sustainability Program. Her research interests Engineer. Dr. Wolff received his B.S. in Renewable include conservation, privatization, climate change, Energy Engineering Technology from Jordan College and California water. Ms. Cooley holds a B.S. in in 1982, his M.S. in Civil and Environmental Molecular Environmental Biology and an M.S. in Engineering from Stanford University in 1984, and Energy and Resources from the University of his Ph.D. in Resource Economics from the University California at Berkeley. Prior to joining the Institute, of California at Berkeley in 1997. His professional Ms. Cooley worked at Lawrence Berkeley National career has included solar energy construction Laboratory on climate and land use change. contracting, water quality regulation for the State of California, serving as design engineer at a wastewater treatment plant, founding and serving as president Peter H. Gleick of a small engineering consulting firm, holding a post-doctoral fellowship at the Center for Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and President Conservation Biology at Stanford University, and of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, holding a visiting professorship at the Graduate Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Dr. Gleick works on the hydrologic impacts of climate Institute of International Studies. He is former chair change; sustainable water use, planning, and policy; of the East Bay Municipal Utility District Demand and international conflicts over water resources. Dr. Management Advisory Committee; a former member Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Desalination M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California Research Project Executive Committee; and a member at Berkeley. In 2003 he received a MacArthur of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Foundation Fellowship for his work on water issues. Control Board, the state regulator of ambient water He serves on the boards of numerous journals and quality in the nine-county Bay Area. organizations and was elected an Academician of the International Water Academy in Oslo, Norway in 1999. In 2001, he was appointed to the Water Science and Technology Board of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. In 2006, he was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick is the author of many scientific papers and five books, including the biennial water report , published by Island Press The World’s Water (Washington, D.C.).

6 IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In this report, the Pacific Institute provides a and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Flora comprehensive overview of the history, benefits, Family Foundation. We thank them for their and risks of ocean desalination, and the barriers generosity and foresight. that hinder more widespread use of this technology. Conclusions and Recommendations We offer a set of We would like to thank Klaus Wangnick and that will help water users and planners interested Global Water Intelligence for providing the global in making desalination a more significant part of desalination dataset. We would also like to thank international, national, and local water policy. all those who have offered ideas, data, information, Our intention is to provide information to help the and comments on the report, including Robert public and policymakers understand and evaluate Cheng, Caitlan Crafts, Brad Damitz, Ruby Evans, the arguments being put forward by both proponents Conner Everts, Joe Geever, Fawzi Karajeh, Tom and opponents of the current proposals. Luster, Kevin Price, Kevin Thomas, and Paul Townsley. We would also like to thank Barry Gold, Major funds for this report were provided by the formerly of the Packard Foundation. And, last but California Coastal and Marine Initiative (CCMI) not least, we would like to thank Ian Hart of the program of the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Institute for his help with editing, formatting, and and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. producing the report. All conclusions and errors are, Additional support was provided by the William of course, our own.

7 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE V CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 4 Desalination Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background to Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 History of Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Desalination Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Membrane and Filtration Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Thermal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Other Desalination Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Current Status of Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Global Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Desalination in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Desalination in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . California’s Proposed Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Northern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Southern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Assessing the Advantages and Disadvantages of Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 . . . . . . . . . . 45 Water Supply Diversity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Coastal Development and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Other Relevant Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Privatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Desalination and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Co-Locating Desalination and Energy Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Public Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination Appendix A: Desalination Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Appendix B: Desalination Capacity in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Appendix C: The Tampa Bay Desalination Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Appendix D: Some Portfolio Theory Math for Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On line Appendix E: Data and Statistics for the Water Quality Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Appendix F: Historical Energy Prices and Rainfall in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online

8 CONTENTS VI List of Figures : Map of Proposed Desalination Plants in California, Spring 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure ES1 : Global Desalination Capacity by Process, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 1 : Time-Series of Global Desalination Capacity, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 2 : Global Desalination Capacity by Source Water, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 3 : Countries with More Than 1% of Global Desalination Capacity, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 4 : Time-Series of U.S. Desalination Capacity, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 5 Figure 6 : U.S. Desalination Capacity by Source Water, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 7 : U.S. Desalination Capacity by Process, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 8 : U.S. States with More Than 1% of the Total U.S. Installed Capacity, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 : Time-Series of California Desalination Capacity, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 9 : California Installed Desalination Capacity by User, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 10 : California Desalination Capacity by Process, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 11 : California Desalination Capacity by Source Water, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 12 Figure 13 : Map of Proposed Desalination Plants in California, Spring 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 : Typical Costs for a Reverse-Osmosis Desalination Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 14 Figure 15 : Typical Costs for a Very Large Seawater Thermal Desalination Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 : Reliability in a Run-of-the-River Water-Supply System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 16 Figure 17 : Illustration of Average and Constant-Reliability-Benefit (Drought Year) Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 18 : Energy Intensity of Water Sources in San Diego County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 : Relative Cost of Potable Water from a Typical Ocean Desalination, Wastewater Recycling, Figure 19 8 and Gravity Surface Water Source in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 : Relative Cost of Potable Water from a Typical Ocean Desalination, Wastewater Recycling, Figure 20 and Gravity Surface Water Source in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 List of Tables : Proposed Plants in California, Spring 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Table ES1 Table 1 . . 11 : Salt Concentrations of Different Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 : Global Desalination Capacity by Source Water, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6 Table 3 : Desalination Facilities Located Along the California Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table 4 : Proposed Desalination Plants in California, Spring 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 5 : Summary of Reported First-Year Cost of Produced Water for RO Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 : Portfolios Providing 500 ppm TDS 99.5% of Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 6 Table 7 : Energy and Precipitation Summary Statistics for California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 8 : Pre- and Post-Operational Monitoring Required to Assess the Impacts of Desalination on Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 9 : Overview of Required Permits and Approvals for Desalination Plants in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

9 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — VII A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS : acre-feet AF mg/l : milligrams per liter : acre-feet per year AFY MMWD : Marin Municipal Water District BCDC : San Francisco Bay Conservation and : Monterey Peninsula Water Management MPWMD Development Commission District BLS : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics : multi-stage flash distillation MSF : California American Water Company Cal Am MWD : Metropolitan Water District of Southern California : California Coastal Commission CCC NEPA : National Environmental Policy Act : Cambria Community Services District CCSD NF : nanofiltration : California Department of Water Resources CDWR : National Pollutant Discharge Elimination NPDES CEQA : California Environmental Quality Act System E : current drought-year demand D : once-through cooling OTC F : future drought-year demand D ppm : parts per million N : difference between future drought-year demand D RO : reverse osmosis F E ) ) and current drought-year demand (D (D RWQCB : Regional Water Quality Control Board : East Bay Municipal Utility District EBMUD : standard deviation SD ED : electrodialysis SDCWA : San Diego County Water Authority : electrodialysis reversal EDR SWFWMD : Southwest Florida Water Management : Environmental Impact Report EIR District : fiscal year FY SWRCB : State Water Resources Control Board IPCC : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : total dissolved solids TDS 3 : kilowatt-hours per cubic meter kWh/m UF : ultrafiltration kWh/kgal : kilowatt-hours per thousand gallons : U.S. dollars per thousand gallons US$/kgal LADWP : Los Angeles Department of Water and Power U.S. EPA : United States Environmental Protection Agency : Long Beach Water Department LBWD : vapor compression VC : Local Coastal Program LCP 3 WBMWD : West Basin Municipal Water District : cubic meter m 3 WtP : willingness to pay : cubic meters per day /d m $/kgal : dollars per thousand gallons MD : membrane distillation 3 : dollars per cubic meter $/m MED : multiple-effect distillation $/kWh : dollars per kilowatt-hour MF : microfiltration MGD : million gallons per day

10 VIII CONVERSIONS CONVERSIONS 3 1 cubic meter (m ) = 264 gallons = 0.0008 acre-feet (AF) 3 ) = 0.003 acre-feet (AF) 1,000 gallons (kgal) = 3.79 cubic meters (m 3 ) = 3.1 acre-feet (AF) 1 million gallons = 3,785 cubic meters (m 3 ) 1 acre-foot (AF) = 325,853 gallons = 1,233 cubic meters (m 3 -4 /d) = 264 gallons per day = 0.3 acre-feet per year (AFY) = 2.6 x 10 million gallons per 1 cubic meter per day (m day (MGD) 3 /d) = 1,120 acre-feet per year (AFY) 1 million gallons per day (MGD) = 3,785 cubic meters per day (m 3 -4 /d) = 8.9 x 10 million gallons per day (MGD) 1 acre-foot per year (AFY) = 3.4 cubic meters per day (m 3 ) = $325.85 per acre-foot ($/AF) $1 per thousand gallons ($/kgal) = $0.26 per cubic meter ($/m

11 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ONG CONSIDERED THE Holy Grail of water supply, desalination offers the potential of an unlimited source of fresh water purified from the vast oceans of salt water that surround us. The public, politicians, L and water managers continue to hope that cost-effective and environmen- tally safe ocean desalination will come to the rescue of water-short regions. While seawater desalination plants are already vital for economic development in many arid and water-short areas of the world, many The potential benefits plants are overly expensive, inaccurately promoted, poorly designed, of ocean desalination inappropriately sited, and ultimately useless. To avoid new, expensive errors, policymakers and the public need to take a careful look at the are great, but the advantages and disadvantages of desalination and develop clear guidance economic, cultural, on how to evaluate and judge proposals for new facilities. and environmental In this report, the Pacific Institute provides a comprehensive overview of costs of wide the history, benefits, and risks of ocean desalination, and the barriers that hinder more widespread use of this technology, especially in the context commercialization of recent proposals for a massive increase in desalination development in remain high. California. The potential benefits of ocean desalination are great, but the economic, cultural, and environmental costs of wide commercialization remain high. In many parts of the world, alternatives can provide the same freshwater benefits of ocean desalination at far lower economic and environmental costs. These alternatives include treating low-quality local water sources, encouraging regional water transfers, improving conservation and effi- ciency, accelerating wastewater recycling and reuse, and implementing

12 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY smart land-use planning. At present, the only significant seawater desali- nation capacity is in the Persian Gulf, on islands with limited local sup- plies, and at selected other locations where water options are limited and the public is willing to pay high prices. In the United States, almost all seawater desalination facilities are small systems used for high-valued industrial and commercial needs. This may be changing. Despite the major barriers to desalination, interest has recently mushroomed as technology has improved, demands for water have grown, and prices have dropped. Interest in desalination has been especially high in California, where rap- idly growing populations, inadequate regulation of the water supply/land- use nexus, and ecosystem degradation from existing water supply sources have forced a rethinking of water policies and management. In the past five years, public and private entities have put forward more than 20 pro- posals for large desalination facilities along the California coast (Figure ES1; Table ES1). If all of the proposed facilities were built, the state’s sea- water desalination capacity would increase by a factor of 70, and sea- water desalination would supply 6% of California’s year 2000 urban water demand. Project proponents point to statewide water-supply con- straints, the reliability advantages of “drought-proof” supply, the water- quality improvements offered by desalinated water, and the benefits of local control. Along with the proposals, however, has come a growing public debate about high economic and energy costs, environmental and social impacts, and consequences for coastal development policies. We review and analyze these factors here. Figure ES1 Map of Proposed Desalination Plants in California, Spring 2006 3 ALIFORNIA C /d) > 20 MGD (76,000 m 3 5 – 20 MGD (19,000 – 76,000 m /d) 3 /d) < 5 MGD (19,000 m rockett C S an Rafael S F Bay Regional Plant Montara (2) Landing Mo ss anta C ruz S C (2) ity S and Marina Ocean View Plaza C ambria Oceano Playa Del Rey El S egundo Dana Point Long Beach Huntington Beach C amp Pendleton C arl s bad (2)

13 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 3 pacity Max Ca Location Operator 3 m /d MGD 10-15 San Rafael Marin Municipal Water District 38,000-57,000 20-80 76,000-300,000 East Bay Municipal Utility District/ Pittsburg/Oakland/ Oceanside San Francisco Public Utilities Commission/ Contra Costa Water District/ Santa Clara Valley Water District East Bay Municipal Utility District Crockett 1.5 5,700 Montara N/A N/A Montara Water and Sanitary District Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz 9,500, possible 2.5, possible expansion to 17,000 expansion to 4.5 Moss Landing 11-12 42,000-45,000 California American Water Company Pajaro-Sunny Mesa/Poseidon Moss Landing 20-25 76,000-95,000 Sand City City of Sand City 1,100 0.3 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Sand City 7.5 28,000 Marina Coast Water District Marina 1.3 4,900 Ocean View Plaza Cannery Row 0.05 190 Cambria Community Services District/ Cambria 1,500 0.4 Department of the Army Arroyo Grande/Grover Beach/ 1.9 7,100 Oceano Oceano Community Services District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Playa Del Rey 12-25 45,000-95,000 El Segundo West Basin Municipal Water District 76,000 20 Long Beach Water Department Long Beach 8.9 34,000 Poseidon Resources Huntington Beach 50 190,000 Municipal Water District of Orange County Dana Point 25 95,000 San Diego County Water Authority/ Camp Pendleton 190,000, expanding 50, expanding to 100 to 380,000 Municipal Water District of Orange County Poseidon Resources 50, possible 190,000, possible Carlsbad expansion to 80 expansion to 300,000 San Diego County Water Authority Carlsbad 50, possible 190,000, possible expansion to 80 expansion to 300,000 Table ES1 Based on this assessment, we conclude that most of the recent seawater Proposed Plants in California as of desalination proposals in California appear to be premature. Among the Spring 2006 exceptions may be desalination proposals where alternative water-man- agement options have been substantially developed, explicit ecosystem benefits are guaranteed, environmental and siting problems have been identified and mitigated, the construction and development impacts are minimized, and customers are willing to pay the high costs to cover a properly designed and managed plant.

14 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When the barriers to desalination are overcome, carefully regulated and monitored construction of desalination facilities should be permitted. We urge regulators to develop comprehensive, consistent, and clear rules for desalination proposals, so that inappropriate proposals can be swiftly rejected and appropriate ones identified and facilitated. And we urge private companies, local communities, and public water districts that push for desalination facilities to do so in an open and transparent Is desalination the way, encouraging and soliciting public participation and input in ultimate solution to decision making. our water problems? Is desalination the ultimate solution to our water problems? No. Is it No. Is it likely to be a likely to be a piece of our water management puzzle? Yes. In the end, decisions about desalination developments will revolve around complex piece of our water evaluations of local circumstances and needs, economics, financing, envi- management puzzle? ronmental and social impacts, and available alternatives. We urge that such decisions be transparent, open, public, and systematic. To that end, Yes. Conclusions and Recommendations that will help water we offer a set of users and planners interested in making desalination a more significant part of international, national, and local water policy. Our intention is to provide information to help the public and policymakers understand and evaluate the arguments being put forward by both proponents and oppo- nents of the current proposals. Desalination Conclusions and Recommendations Economic Costs of Desalination The cost of desalination has fallen in recent years, but it remains an expensive water-supply option. Desalination facilities are being proposed in locations where considerable cost-effective conservation and efficiency improvements are still possible. Water planners, agencies, and managers must comprehensively analyze • all options, including conservation and efficiency, and pursue less The cost of desalina- costly, less environmentally damaging alternatives first. tion has fallen in • Desalination facilities should be approved only where water agencies recent years, but it have implemented all cost-effective water conservation and efficiency measures. remains an expensive water-supply option. Desalination costs are influenced by many factors, making comparisons difficult and estimates uncertain. All cost estimates should explicitly state the underlying assumptions. • Cost comparisons must be made on a comparable basis. • The assumption that desalination costs will continue to fall may be false. Further cost reductions may be limited, and future costs may actually increase. • Projected costs must be justified over the lifetime of the facility, taking

15 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 5 into account possible changes in the cost of energy and construction materials, limits to membrane performance, and other factors. More energy is required to produce water from desalination than from any other water-supply or demand-management option in California. The future cost of desalinated water will be more sensitive to changes in More energy is energy prices than will other sources of water. required to produce Project proponents should estimate and publicly disclose the full • water from energy requirements of each proposed project and provide details of desalination than energy contracts. from any other • Project proponents should explicitly evaluate energy price risk, water-supply or including year-to-year variation and trends over time, in the revenue requirement of water utilities that invest in or purchase water from demand-management ocean desalination. option in California. Public subsidies for desalination plants are inappropriate unless explicit public benefits are guaranteed. • Decisionmakers should offer public subsidies to desalination facilities only when the facilities come with a guarantee of public benefits, such as restoration of ecosystem flows. More research is needed to fill gaps in our understanding, but the techno- logical state of desalination is sufficiently mature and commercial to require the private sector to bear most additional research costs. Public research funds should be restricted to analyzing the public • aspects of desalination projects, including environmental impacts, miti- gation, and protection. Reliability and Water-Quality Considerations Desalination plants offer both system-reliability and water-quality advan- tages, but other options may provide these advantages at lower cost. Water agencies should estimate the value of reliability or water-quality • advantages in general, regardless of how that reliability or water- quality improvement is achieved. Water agencies should compare the cost of providing reliable or high- • quality water from various sources, including ocean desalination. Water managers must still apply the standard principles of least-cost planning. Desalination can produce high-quality water but may also introduce bio- logical or chemical contaminants into our water supply. In order to ensure public health, all water from desalination plants • must be monitored and regulated. When new or unregulated contaminants are introduced, new legisla- • tion, regulatory oversight, or standards may be needed.

16 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Desalination can produce water that is corrosive and damaging to water- distribution systems. • Additional research is needed to determine the impacts of desalinated product water on the distribution system. • Water-service providers must ensure that distribution systems are not adversely affected. Environmental Considerations Desalination produces highly concentrated salt brines that may also con- tain other chemical pollutants. Safe disposal of this effluent is a challenge. • More comprehensive studies are needed to adequately identify all con- taminants in desalination brines and to mitigate the impacts of brine discharge. Water managers should carefully monitor, report, and minimize the • concentrations of chemicals in brine discharges. • Federal or state regulators should evaluate whether new water-quality regulations are needed to protect local environments or human health. Under all circumstances, water managers must minimize brine disposal • in close proximity to sensitive habitats, such as wetlands. • Disposal of brine in underground aquifers should be prohibited unless Impingement and comprehensive and competent groundwater surveys are done and there is no reasonable risk of brine plumes appearing in freshwater wells. entrainment of marine organisms are among Impingement and entrainment of marine organisms are among the most significant environmental threats associated with seawater desalination. the most significant environmental threats The effects of impingement and entrainment require detailed baseline • ecological assessments, impact studies, and careful monitoring. associated with seawater desalination. • Intake pipes should be located outside of areas with high biological productivity and designed to minimize impingement and entrainment. Subsurface and beach intake wells may mitigate some of the environ- mental impacts of open ocean intakes. The advantages and disadvantages of subsurface and beach intake wells are site-specific. For all desalination projects, proponents should evaluate the advan- • tages and disadvantages of these options, including a review of impacts on freshwater aquifers and the local environment. Desalination may reduce the need to take additional water from the envi- ronment and, in some cases, offers the opportunity to return water to the environment. Desalination proposals that claim environmental benefits must come • with binding mechanisms to ensure that these benefits are delivered and maintained in the form, degree, and consistency promised.

17 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 7 Climate Change Desalination offers both advantages and disadvantages in the face of cli- matic extremes and human-induced climate changes. Desalination facili- ties may help reduce the dependence of local water agencies on climate- sensitive sources of supply. • Desalination proposals should evaluate the long-term climatic risks and benefits. Extensive development of desalination can lead to greater dependence on fossil fuels, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a worsening of Desalination offers climate change. both advantages and Plans for desalination must explicitly describe the energy implications • disadvantages in the of the facility and how these impacts fit into regional efforts or face of climatic requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or meet regional, state, or federal clean air requirements. extremes and human-induced • Regulatory agencies should consider requiring desalination plants to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. climate changes. Coastal desalination facilities will be vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, storm surges, and extreme weather events. • Planners should design and construct all desalination facilities using estimates of future, not present, climate and ocean conditions. • Regulatory agencies should permit desalination facilities only when consideration of climate change factors and other hazards has been integrated into plant design. Siting and Operation of Desalination Plants Ocean desalination facilities, and the water they produce, will affect coastal development and land use. Project proponents must evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of • desalination facilities on a case-by-case basis and not assume these impacts to be incidental, minimal, or secondary. • Desalination proponents must identify to the public and appropriate regulatory agencies all buyers and potential buyers of project water. California coastal development permits should be denied to desalina- • tion plants that will induce growth beyond levels projected in certified Local Coastal Programs. There are unresolved controversies over private ownership and operation of desalination facilities. Negotiations over project contracts should be open, transparent, and • include all affected stakeholders.

18 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contracts that lay out the responsibilities of each partner are a prereq- • uisite for the success of any project. These contracts must include explicit dispute resolution mechanisms and provisions addressing financial risks in the event of project failure. • Independent technical and contract review should be standard. Co-location of desalination facilities at existing power plants offers both economic and environmental advantages and disadvantages. • Proponents should not use desalination to keep once-through cooling systems in operation longer than would otherwise be permitted under current or proposed regulations. • Regulators should not issue exemptions to permit once-through cooling systems to remain in operation solely to service desalination plants. • Project proponents must assess the effects of desalination independ- ently of the power plant due to uncertainty associated with once- through cooling system systems. • Additional research is needed to determine whether there are syner- gistic effects caused by combining desalination’s high salinity discharge with the high temperatures and dead biomass in power plant dis- charge. Siting, building, and operation of desalination facilities are likely to be delayed or halted if local conditions and sentiments and the public interest are not adequately acknowledged and addressed. The process of designing, permitting, and developing desalination facil- • ities must be transparent and open. • Draft contracts, engineering designs, and management agreements should be widely available for public review beginning in the early stages of project development. • Project developers and local water agencies should commission and The regulatory and make publicly available independent review of the social and economic oversight process impacts of desalination facilities on local communities. for desalination is • Affected community members should be invited to participate in desali- sometimes unclear nation project planning, implementation, and management during the early stages of the process. and contradictory. The regulatory and oversight process for desalination is sometimes unclear and contradictory. Federal, state, and local policies should standardize and clarify the reg- • ulation of desalination. • Desalination should not be hindered by inappropriate regulation nor accelerated by regulatory exemptions.

19 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 9 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION HE OCEANS CONTAIN 97% of the Earth’s water. This water is too salty for humans to use for irrigation, drinking, and most commer- T cial and industrial purposes. Because of growing concerns about water scarcity and quality, and disputes over allocations of scarce water resources, a tremendous amount of effort has been devoted to developing technologies to desalinate the vast quantities of seawater available. While substantial progress has been made in recent years, desalination remains a minor source of water in all but the wealthiest, most water-scarce regions. In particular, desalination remains too expensive to be a primary source of fresh water and presents significant social, environmental, and techno- logical obstacles that must be overcome. Nevertheless, in some regions, water planners are looking to desalination as a way to overcome natural limitations on freshwater availability, quality, and reliability. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the benefits and risks of desalination and the barriers that hinder more widespread use of this technology. It does not address whether desalination is needed in California, nor does it comprehensively compare this supply option with other options, such as conservation, conjunctive use, or water recycling. 1 See Gleick et al. 2003 and Gleick et al. 2005 Previous work at the Pacific Institute suggests that water continues to be for an assessment of the potential for used wastefully in California and that substantial amounts of water can conservation and efficiency to meet future be conserved cost-effectively compared to almost all proposed supply 1 demands in California. expansions, including desalination.

20 10 INTRODUCTION Conclusions and Recommendations to help water users We offer a set of and planners make desalination a more significant part of international, national, and local water policy where appropriate. We emphasize recent activities in California, where a combination of factors has led to a revival of interest in desalination, a series of project proposals, and a growing public debate. This debate should be encouraged, but it should also be informed. Our intention is to provide information to help the public and policymakers understand and evaluate the arguments being put forward by both proponents and opponents of the current proposals. Background to Desalination The Earth’s hydrologic cycle naturally desalinates water using solar energy. Water evaporates from oceans, lakes, and land surfaces, leaving salts behind. The resulting freshwater vapor forms clouds that produce precipitation, which falls to earth as rain and snow and moves through soils, dissolving minerals and becoming increasingly salty. The oceans are salty because the natural process of evaporation, precipitation, and runoff is constantly moving salt from the land to the sea, where it builds up over time. “Desalination” refers to the wide range of processes designed to remove salts from waters of different qualities (Box 1; Table 1). Desalination technology is in use throughout the world for a wide range of purposes, including providing potable fresh water for domestic and municipal pur- poses, treated water for industrial processes, and emergency water for refugees or military operations. Box 1: What’s in a Name? Desalination? Desalinisation? Desalinization? Desalting? There is no consistently accepted technical term (or spelling) for the process of removing salt from water, though most water engineers and professional organizations use the term “desalination.” When one conducts a Web search on Google for the term “desaliniza- tion,” the search engine asks, “Did you mean: ‘desalination’?” Conversely, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (2002) has an entry for desalinization, but nothing for desalination. The Commonwealth countries spell it with an “s” in place of the “z.” The diversity of professional associations and organizations (organisations?) in this field reflects the diversity of terms used, including the International Desalination Association, the Australian Desalination Association, the European Desalination Association, the Southeast Desalting Association, the American Desalting Association, and the Middle East Desalinisation Research Center. In this report, we use “desalination” and “desalting” inter- changeably; why use six syllables when three (or five) will do?

21 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 11 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Table 1 Approximate Salt Water Source or Type Salt Concentrations of Different a (grams per liter) Concentration Water Sources Brackish waters 0.5 to 3 Sources: OTV 1999, Gleick 1993 21 North Sea (near estuaries) 23 to 33 Gulf of Mexico and coastal waters Notes: Atlantic Ocean 35 a. Slight spatial variations in salt content are 38 Pacific Ocean found in all major bodies of water. The values Persian Gulf 45 in the table are considered typical. A gram per Dead Sea ~300 liter is equal to approximately 1000 parts per million. Desalination facilities in many arid and water-short areas of the world are vital for economic development. In particular, desalination is an impor- 2 North tant water source in parts of the arid Middle East, Persian Gulf, Africa, Caribbean islands, and other locations where the natural avail- ability of fresh water is insufficient to meet demand and where traditional water-supply options or transfers from elsewhere are implausible or uneconomical. Increasingly, other regions are exploring the use of desali- nation as a potential mainstream source of reliable, high-quality water as the prices slowly drop toward the cost of more traditional alternatives. History of Desalination The idea of separating salt from water is an ancient one, dating from the time when salt, not water, was a precious commodity. As populations and demands for fresh water expanded, however, entrepreneurs began to look for ways of producing fresh water in remote locations and, especially, on naval ships at sea. In 1790, United States Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson received a request to sell the government a distillation method to convert salt water to fresh water. A British patent was granted for such a device in 1852 (Simon 1998). The first place to make a major commit- ment to desalination was the island of Curaçao in the Netherlands Antilles. Plants have operated there since 1928 (Birkett 1999), and even the local beer is made with desalinated water. A major seawater desalination plant was built in 1938 in what is now Saudi Arabia. Research on desalination was conducted during World War II to identify ways to meet military needs for fresh water in water-short regions. The United States and other countries continued that work after the war. The U.S. Congress passed the Saline Water Conversion Act (PL 82-448) in 1952, which created and funded the Office of Saline Water within the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. In the 1960s, Senator and then President John F. Kennedy strongly sup- ported the idea of large-scale commercial desalination. Such a system “can do more to raise men and women from lives of poverty than any other scientific advance” (Kennedy 1961). An early version of modern distillation plants was built in Kuwait in the early 1960s. In the early 2 As noted by the National Geographic Society, 1970s, the federal Saline Water Conversion Act (PL 92-60) created the “Historically and most commonly known as the Office of Water Research and Technology, which focused on desalination Persian Gulf, this body of water is referred to by efforts associated with designing and building the Yuma Desalting Plant, some as the Arabian Gulf.”

22 12 INTRODUCTION as required by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-320). Many of the advances in membrane technologies used in this plant and more advanced reverse osmosis (RO) plants have their roots in publicly funded research and development programs. In 1977, the U.S. spent almost $144 million for desalination research (Simon 1998), and additional funding was committed to desalination programs in other countries, including the Persian Gulf and Japan. In 1982, the Reagan administration cut federal funding for non-military scientific research of almost every kind, including desalination work, and the Office of Water Research and Technology was closed. The next 14 years saw limited U.S. support for desalination, with the exception of some work on water-treatment technologies supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bach 2005). In 1996, Senator Paul Simon revived interest in federal support for a modest desalination research program, authoring the Water Desalination Act (PL 104-298). This bill was signed into law and authorized $30 mil- lion over a six-year period for desalination research and studies, together with another $25 million over fiscal years 1999 to 2002 for demonstra- tion projects. Authority for these activities was renewed through 2005 and partly funded in the FY 2005 Omnibus Bill. The original legislation required 50% cost sharing from the private sector and the support of multiple technologies. For the 1999 fiscal year, the U.S. government appropriated only $2.5 million; for fiscal year 2000, only $1.3 million was appropriated (ADA 1999, Price 1999). U.S. efforts have expanded in the past few years. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has been working with professional research organizations and corporations to publish a collection of desalination literature (called DESALNET) containing the full reports of the federal efforts. They pro- duced the “Desalination and Water Purification Roadmap” with funding from the FY 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. This roadmap was intended to establish long-term goals for research and development in desalination and water purification (Bach 2005). Additional funds have been provided to build a national desalination research facility at Alamogordo, New Mexico, scheduled for completion in 2006, and to support research and development activities at the site of the mothballed Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona. All together, additional appropriations in recent years have brought the total to just over $28 million, with more than $12 million in Reclamation desalination research and development alone since 2004. Despite a hot-and-cold approach to research and development, by the early 21st century, the U.S. government alone had spent nearly $2 billion on the basic research and development framework for many of the tech- nologies now used for desalting seawater and brackish waters. Other gov- ernment and private investments are also helping to stimulate the global desalination market, and many private commercial efforts are now advancing the technology and expanding operating experience.

23 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 13 Desalination Technologies There is no single best method of desalination. A wide variety of desali- nation technologies effectively remove salts from salty water (or extract fresh water from salty water), producing a water stream with a low con- There is no single centration of salt (the product stream) and another with a high concen- best method of tration of remaining salts (the brine or concentrate). Most of these tech- nologies rely on either distillation or membranes to separate salts from desalination. the product water (USAID 1980, Wangnick 1998 and 2002, Ultimately, the Wangnick/GWI 2005). Ultimately, the selection of a desalination process depends on site-specific conditions, including the salt content of the selection of a water, economics, the quality of water needed by the end user, and local desalination process engineering experience and skills. Desalination technologies are briefly 3 summarized below, and more detail is provided in Appendix A. depends on site-specific conditions, including The earliest plants were based mostly on large-scale thermal evaporation or distillation of seawater, mimicking the natural hydrologic cycle. Some the salt content of early distillation plants were used to desalt brackish water, but high costs the water, economics, prevented widespread adoption of this approach in most regions. The major exception was several countries in the Persian Gulf region where the quality of water excess or inexpensive energy is available. needed by the end user, Beginning in the 1970s, more plants were installed using membranes that and local engineering mimic the natural biological process of osmosis, because these systems experience and skills. have a number of advantages over thermal systems. Membrane technolo- gies can desalinate both seawater and brackish water, although they are more commonly used to desalinate brackish water because costs increase along with the salt content of the water. Membrane technologies can also remove microorganisms and many organic contaminants. In addition, membrane technologies generally have lower capital costs and require less energy than thermal systems. Thermal desalination systems, however, can produce water with much lower salt content than membrane systems (typically less than 25 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS) in thermal systems compared to less than 500 ppm in membrane systems) (USBR 2003). The technology for desalinating water continues to improve, driven by advances in technology, the need to reduce costs, and commercial compe- tition. Recent reviews recommend that research focus on several areas, including the development of smart sensors to monitor water quality, improved filtration, better heat-transfer materials, and less environmen- tally damaging intake methods (NAS 2004). Specific improvements for thermal and membrane processes are described in greater detail under the appropriate headings and in Appendix A. Membrane and Filtration Processes Membranes and filters can selectively permit or prohibit the passage of certain ions, and desalination technologies have been designed around these capabilities. Membranes play an important role in the separation of salts in the natural processes of dialysis and osmosis. These natural prin- ciples have been adapted in two commercially important desalting 3 Appendix A is available online at processes: electrodialysis (ED) and RO. Both of these concepts have been . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination understood for a century, but commercialization lagged until the tech-

24 14 INTRODUCTION nology for creating and maintaining membranes improved. These two approaches now account for more than half of all desalination capacity, and although they have typically been used to desalinate brackish water, versions are increasingly being applied to seawater (Figure 1). In recent years, the industry has achieved great advances in RO technology, and since the 1970s new membrane capacity has exceeded new distillation capacity. A growing number of desalination systems are also adding fil- tration units prior to the membranes in order to remove contaminants that affect long-term filter operation. Box 2 lists the characteristics of major filtration and membrane systems. Figure 1 MED Other 3% Global Desalination Capacity by Process, 5% V C January 2005 5% ED 5% ED = electrodialysis MED = multi-effect distillation MSF = multi-stage flash RO % 6 4 Other = freeze, hybrid, nanofiltration, thermal, and all other processes RO = reverse osmosis VC = vapor compression S M F % 6 3 Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 Among the needed improvements specific to membrane systems are improved membrane integrity and selectivity and reduced fouling. These improvements can reduce costs as well as provide higher-quality product 4 water. See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion. Box 2: Filtration/Membrane Systems Microfiltration (MF) membranes reduce turbidity and remove sus- pended solids and bacteria. MF membranes operate via a sieving mechanism under a lower pressure than either UF or NF mem- branes. membranes soften water, remove organics and Nanofiltration (NF) sulfates, and eliminate some viruses. Removal is by combined sieving and solution diffusion. Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes desalinate both brackish water and seawater and are capable of removing some organic contami- nants. Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes remove contaminants that affect color, high-weight dissolved organic compounds, bacteria, and some viruses. UF membranes also operate via a sieving mechanism. Sources: Heberer et al. 2001, Sedlak and Pinkston 2001, NAS 2004 4 Appendix A is available online at . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination

25 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 15 Electrodialysis and Electrodialysis Reversal Electrodialysis is an electrochemical separation process that uses electrical currents to move salt ions selectively through a membrane, leaving fresh water behind. The process was commercially introduced in the mid 1950s, providing a cost-effective way to desalinate brackish water and spurring considerable interest in the use of membranes. The energy requirements for ED, and hence a large part of the costs, are proportional to the salts removed. ED can produce more product and less brine than distillation processes, can treat water with a higher level of suspended solids than RO, and needs fewer pretreatment chemicals. These systems produce water for industrial and power plant cooling towers, freshwater fish farms, and municipal uses; treat industrial wastes; and concentrate polluted groundwater for further treatment. In the early 1970s, a modification of ED was introduced: electrodialysis reversal (EDR). EDR systems can operate on highly turbid feed water and are less prone to biofouling than RO systems (see below). Experience sug- gests that EDR can also achieve higher water recovery than RO systems. The major energy requirement is the direct current used to separate the ions in the membrane stack. ED and EDR represent about 5% of world- wide desalination capacity (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Reverse Osmosis Reverse osmosis uses pressure on solutions with concentrations of salt to force fresh water to move through a semi-permeable membrane, leaving the salts behind. The amount of desalinated water that can be obtained ranges between 30% and 85% of the volume of the input water, depending on the initial water quality, the quality of the product needed, and the technology and membranes involved. The energy requirements for RO depend directly on the concentration of salts in the feed water and, to a lesser extent, on the temperature of the feed water. Because no heating or phase change is necessary for this Reverse osmosis has method of separation, the major use of energy is for pressurizing the feed water. As a result, RO facilities are most economical for desalinating become a relatively brackish water, and the product water increases in cost as the salt content mature technology of the source water increases. and is experiencing RO has become a relatively mature technology and is experiencing rapid rapid growth. growth. Some of the largest new desalination plants under construction and in operation now use RO membranes, including Ashkelon in Israel and the new plant at Tuas in Singapore. Ashkelon, the largest RO plant in the world, desalinates seawater for municipal purposes with a capacity of 100 million gallons per day (MGD) or 395,000 cubic meters per day 3 /d) (Wangnick/GWI 2005). (m Among the needed improvements in RO systems are better pretreatment of feedwater to reduce the use of chemicals that often end up in the brine

26 16 INTRODUCTION and cause a disposal problem, improved membranes that are more durable and increase the flux of pure water, new approaches to reduce biofouling in membranes, more effective energy recovery and use, and development of less expensive materials (Awerbuch 2004). Thermal Processes Around 40% of the world’s desalted water is produced with processes that use heat to distill fresh water from seawater or brackish water. The distillation process mimics the natural water cycle by producing water Around 40% of the vapor that is then condensed into fresh water. In the simplest approach, world’s desalted water water is heated to the boiling point to produce the maximum amount of water vapor. Water will boil under atmospheric pressure at 100°C. By is produced with decreasing pressure, however, the boiling point can be reduced. At one- processes that use heat quarter of normal pressure, for example, water will boil at 65°C, and it will boil at only 45°C if the pressure is decreased to one-tenth normal. To to distill fresh water take advantage of this principle, systems have been designed to allow from seawater or “multiple boiling” in a series of vessels that operate at successively lower temperatures and pressures. The concept of distilling water with a vessel brackish water. operating at a reduced pressure has been used for well over a century. Distillation systems are often affected by scaling, which occurs when sub- stances like carbonates and sulfates found in seawater precipitate out of solution and cause thermal and mechanical problems. One of the most significant concerns is gypsum, which forms from solution when water approaches about 95°C. Gypsum is the main component of concrete and can coat pipes, tubes, and other surfaces. Scale is difficult to remove and reduces the effectiveness of desalination operations by restricting flows, reducing heat transfer, and coating membrane surfaces. Ultimately scaling increases costs. Keeping the temperature and boiling point low reduces the formation of scale. Multi-Stage Flash Distillation The process that accounts for the greatest installed thermal distillation capacity is multi-stage flash distillation (MSF). Like all evaporative processes, MSF can produce high-quality fresh water with very low salt concentrations (10 ppm or less), from source water with salt concentra- tions as high as 60,000 to 70,000 ppm TDS, nearly twice the salinity of seawater. In MSF, evaporation “flashing” occurs from the bulk liquid, not on a heat-exchange surface, as is the case with other distillation processes (see multiple-effect distillation, below). This approach minimizes scale and is a major reason MSF has been popular for several decades (Birkett 1999). Up until recent advances in membrane technology, MSF was the primary technology used for desalinating seawater. As of early 2005, the largest MSF plant in operation was in Shuweihat in the United Arab Emirates. This plant desalinates seawater for municipal purposes with a 3 /d) (Wangnick/GWI 2005). total capacity of 120 MGD (455,000 m

27 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 17 Multiple-Effect Distillation Multiple-effect distillation (MED) is a thermal method that has been used successfully for over 100 years, substantially predating MSF (Birkett 1999). MED takes place in a series of vessels (“effects”) and reduces the ambient pressure in subsequent effects. This permits seawater to undergo multiple boilings without supplying additional heat after the first effect. Although some of the earliest distillation plants used MED, MSF units – with lower costs and less tendency to scale – have increasingly displaced this process. In the past few years, interest in the MED process has been renewed and MED appears to be gaining market share. According to the Wangnick/GWI desalting inventory, MED has a 15% share of the thermal market, but a 21% share of proposed projects (Wangnick/GWI 2005). MED plants are typically built in units of 0.3 to 3 MGD (1,000 to 3 /d) for smaller towns and industrial uses. 10,000 m Vapor Compression Distillation Vapor compression (VC) distillation is a thermal process that has typi- cally been used for small- and medium-scale seawater desalting units. These units also take advantage of the principle of reducing the boiling point temperature by reducing ambient pressure, but the heat for evapo- rating the water comes from the compression of vapor rather than the direct exchange of heat from steam produced in a boiler. VC units are 3 /d) range and usually built in the 0.066 to 0.50 MGD (250 to 2,000 m used for tourist resorts, small industries, and remote sites. Other Desalination Processes Water can be desalted though many other processes including small-scale ion-exchange resins, freezing, and membrane distillation. None of these processes has achieved the commercial success of RO, thermal distilla- tion, or ED. Together they account for less than 1% of total desalination capacity (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Nevertheless, some of these approaches can be effective, and even preferable, under special circumstances. Ion-Exchange Methods Ion-exchange methods use resins to remove undesirable ions in water. For example, cation-exchange resins are used in homes and municipal water- treatment plants to remove calcium and magnesium ions in “hard” water. The greater the concentration of dissolved solids, the more often the expensive resins have to be replaced, making the entire process economi- cally unattractive compared with RO and ED. At lower concentrations and for small-scale systems, however, these methods have proven effec- tive. Thus, some form of ion exchange is sometimes used for the final polishing of waters that have had most of their salt content removed by RO or ED processes (Birkett 1999).

28 18 INTRODUCTION Freezing Freeze separation takes advantage of the insolubility of salts in ice. When ice crystals form, dissolved salts are naturally excluded. If the resulting pure ice crystals can be separated from the brine, desalinated water can be produced. Extensive work was done in the 1950s and 1960s on separation technology using freezing of water. Freezing has some theoretical advantages over distillation, including a lower minimum energy requirement, minimal potential for corrosion, and little scaling or precipitation. Among the disadvantages, however, is the difficulty of handling and processing ice and water mixtures. A small number of demonstration plants have been built over the past 40 years but, except for the treatment of some industrial wastes, the process has never proven commercially feasible. Membrane Distillation Membrane distillation (MD) combines the use of both thermal distillation and membranes and was introduced commercially on a small scale in the 1980s. The process relies primarily upon thermal evaporation and the use of membranes to pass vapor, which is then condensed to produce fresh water. Thus far, MD has been used only in a few facilities, since it requires more space, more pumping energy per unit of fresh water pro- duced, and more money than other approaches. The main advantages of MD lie in its simplicity and the need for only small temperature differen- tials to operate. MD is probably best suited for desalting saline water where inexpensive low-grade thermal energy is available, such as from industries or solar collectors.

29 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 19 CHAPTER II CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION Global Status OME FORM OF desalination is now used in approximately 130 coun- tries, according to a database developed by Klaus Wangnick and S now managed by Global Water Intelligence (Wangnick/GWI 2005). By January 2005, more than 10,000 desalting units larger than a nominal 3 /d) had been installed or contracted worldwide. These 0.3 MGD (100 m plants have a total capacity to produce about 9,500 MGD (36 million 3 5 /d) of fresh water from all sources. In 2000, the cumulative installed m 3 /d) (Figure 2), desalination capacity was around 6,900 MGD (26 million m hile desalination provides implying a growth rate of around 7% per year. W a substantial part of the water supply in certain oil-rich Middle Eastern nations, globally, installed desalination plants have the capacity to pro- vide just three one-thousandths (0.3%) of total world freshwater use. 10,000 Figure 2 Time-Series of Global Desalination 35,000,000 9,000 Capacity, January 2005 8,000 30,000,000 The bars show annual new installed capacity, and /d 7,000 3 25,000,000 the line shows cumulative installed capacity. Cumulative Installed Capacity 6,000 Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 20,000,000 5,000 4,000 15.000,000 º 3,000 Installed Capacity – MGD Installed Capacity – m 10,000,000 Actual production is likely to be considerably less 5 2,000 than this, since the database adds plants when 5.000,000 1,000 they are commissioned (or sometimes just planned) but does not have reliable information 0 0 on plants that were never built or no longer 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 operate. Figures on actual production of desalinated water are not collected.

30 20 CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION Available technologies can desalinate water from a variety of sources. Figure 3 and Table 2 show the breakdown of water sources as of January 3 /d), or 2005 (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Around 5,300 MGD (20 million m 56%, of desalination capacity was designed to process seawater. Another 3 /d), or 24% of total capacity, can process 2,200 MGD (8.5 million m brackish water. The remaining capacity is used to desalinate waters of other kinds. Table 2 Percent of Worldwide Water Source Global Desalination Capacity by Installed Capacity Source Water, January 2005 56 Seawater Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 Brackish 24 9 River 6 Waste water Pure 5 < 1 Brine Brine Pure Figure 3 <1% 5% s te Wa Global Desalination Capacity by Source % 6 Water, January 2005 River 9 % Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 eawater S 5 6 % h s Bracki 24% º Half of the world’s desalination capacity is in the Middle East/Persian Gulf/North Africa regions. Figure 4 shows those countries with more than 1% of global desalination capacity, as of January 2005. Eighteen percent of global capacity is in Saudi Arabia, followed by 17% in the United States, 13% in the United Arab Emirates, 6% in Spain, and 5% in Kuwait (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Most plants in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates use distillation, while those in the United States rely upon RO and VC. It is important to note that many smaller island communities, not shown in this figure, rely on desalination for a large fraction of their total water need.

31 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 21 Figure 4 7,000,000 1,800 Countries with More Than 1% of Global 1, 6 00 Desalination Capacity, January 2005 ,000,000 6 1,400 D Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 /d 5,000,000 G 3 1,200 4,000,000 1,000 º apacity – M apacity – m C C 800 3,000,000 talled 6 00 talled s s 2,000,000 In In 400 1,000,000 200 0 0 s s in rael Iraq Iran atar Italy hina pa India s tate rate Libya I Q S C Korea Japan S Kuwait Algeria Mexico Bahrain audi Arabia S United United Arab Emi Desalination in the United States Desalination plants have been built in every state in the United States. By January 2005, over 2,000 desalination plants larger than 0.3 MGD (100 3 m /d) had been installed or contracted. These plants have a total installed 3 /d) – less than four capacity of only around 1,600 MGD (6.0 million m 6 one-thousandths (0.4%) of total U.S. water use. Installed capacity has increased somewhat in recent years (Figure 5); between 2000 and 2005, the reported installed capacity has increased by around 30%, but again, the Wangnick/GWI (2005) database includes plants contracted but never built, built but never operated, and operated but now closed. 6 1, 00 Figure 5 ,000,000 6 Time-Series of U.S. Desalination 1,400 Capacity, January 2005 5,000,000 1,200 D The bars show the installed capacity by year, and /d G 3 4,000,000 the line shows cumulative installed capacity. 1,000 umulative In C C s apacity talled Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 800 3,000,000 apacity – M apacity – m C C 00 6 talled 2,000,000 talled s s In In 400 1,000,000 200 º The United States Geological Survey reports total 6 0 0 U.S. water withdrawals in 2000 at around 565 9 70 1 1 9 52 1 1 9 80 96 99 0 2000 0 1 cubic kilometers per year, or around 1,500 gallons per person per day for all uses.

32 22 CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION The source of water treated in the U.S. plants differs from that of the rest of the world (Figure 6). Around half of all U.S. capacity is used to desali- nate brackish water. Twenty-five percent of all U.S. capacity desalinates river water, which is relatively easy and cost-effective for industrial, power plant, or some municipal use. While seawater is the largest source 3 /d) of seawater, or less than globally, less than 120 MGD (0.45 million m 10% of U.S. capacity, is desalinated in the U.S. The remaining capacity is primarily dedicated to desalinating wastewater and pure water for high- quality industrial purposes. Figure 6 Brine Unknown <1% <1% U.S. Desalination Capacity by Source eawater S Pure Water, January 2005 7% 7% te Wa s Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 9 % River % 6 2 Bracki h s 51% º Like the rest of the world, RO is the most common desalination tech- nology used in the U.S., accounting for nearly 70% of the U.S. installed 3 /d) (Figure desalination capacity, or roughly 1,100 MGD (4.0 million m 7). However, the second-most common desalination technology globally, MSF, is uncommon in the U.S.; only 1% of the total U.S. desalination capacity is based on MSF. By contrast, NF is much more common in the U.S., accounting for around 15% of total U.S. capacity. Of the 370 MGD 3 /d) of water that is desalinated worldwide using NF, about (1.4 million m 3 /d) occurs in the U.S. 65% of it (nearly 240 MGD, or 0.89 million m Figure 7 MED 1% U.S. Desalination Capacity by Process, NF January 2005 15% Other 2% ED = electrodialysis MED = multi-effect distillation C V 3% MSF = multi-stage flash NF = nanofiltration ED Other = freeze, hybrid, and all other processes 9 % RO = reverse osmosis S M F VC = vapor compression 1% RO 69 % º Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005

33 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 23 Figure 8 shows the U.S. states that have more than 1% of the U.S. total installed capacity. Three of the four states with the greatest installed capacity — Florida, California, and Texas — are coastal, while the fourth, Arizona, is an arid state with limited water-supply sources. A large plant built by the U.S. government in Yuma, Arizona to desalinate Colorado River water is included in this estimate, but this plant has never operated outside of short test periods. One of the largest desalination plants ever proposed for the United States is the Tampa Bay plant. Touted as a breakthrough in low-cost desalination, this plant has been rife with prob- lems, as noted briefly in Box 3 and in greater detail in Appendix C. Like the Yuma desalter and the Santa Barbara desalination plant (Box 4), the Tampa Bay plant is included in the national inventory but has never oper- ated commercially or reliably. Figure 8 2,500,000 U.S. States with More Than 1% of the 6 00 Total U.S. Installed Capacity, January 2005 2,000,000 500 D Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 /d G 3 400 1,500,000 apacity – M apacity – m 300 C C 1,000,000 talled talled s 200 s In In 500,000 100 0 0 s ma lina Ohio Utah 7 A more detailed review of the Tampa Bay º Te x a lvania Hawaii aro Florida y olorado Virginia Arizona alifornia s C plant is provided in Appendix C, online at Alabama C C Oklaho enn . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination P North 7 Box 3: The Experience of the Tampa Bay Desalination Plant In March 1999, regional water officials in Florida The planning process for the plant began in approved plans to build an RO plant with a October 1996. In early 1999, Tampa Bay Water 3 /d). Claims were capacity of 25 MGD (95,000 m selected S&W Water, LLC, a consortium between made by project proponents that the cost of water Poseidon Water Resources and Stone & Webster. would be very low and competitive with other local Their proposal called for construction of the plant sources. The project and the apparent break- on the site of the Big Bend Power Plant on Tampa through in price excited desalination advocates. Bay to begin in January 2001, and for operation to The desalination facility was to be privately owned begin in the second half of 2002 (Heller 1999, and operated and upon completion would supple- Hoffman 1999). A total of 44 MGD (167,000 3 /d) of feed water would be used to produce ment drinking water supplies for 1.8 million retail m 3 /d) of potable water around 25 MGD (95,000 m water customers. The plant was considered neces- 3 /d) of brine. The desali- and 19 MGD (72,000 m sary to help reduce groundwater overdraft and to nated water would then be added to the municipal meet future demands. supply. Continued on next page

34 24 CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION Box 3 Continued The agreement called for desalinated water to be plant could be operated at less than full capacity as delivered at an unprecedented wholesale cost of long as groundwater pumping was reduced. $1.71 per thousand gallons ($1.71/kgal), or $0.45 Environmentalists and activists strongly opposed 3 ), for the first year, with a per cubic meter ($0.45/m the deal because they “felt cheated” (Skerritt 3 ) 30-year average cost of $2.08/kgal ($0.55/m 2006). (Heller 1999). Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) agreed to pro- American Water-Pridesa expects the plant to open vide 90% of the projected $110 million in capital in late 2006 for another assessment period, after costs for construction of the plant and the cost of $29 million in repairs are finished, and expects the the pipeline needed to transport the water to the plant to be fully operational in January 2008, six water-distribution system (U.S. Water News 2003, years late. In a press release issued in early 2004, Heller 1999). the new cost was estimated at $2.54/kgal ($0.67 3 ), up from an initial expected cost of per m 3 ) between $1.71 and $2.08/kgal ($0.45 to $0.55/m The project has been fraught with difficulties, and (Business Wire 2004). The recent decision to reduce as of May 2006, it is still not in operation due to the amount of water that the plant will produce serious management and technological failures. A and additional unforeseen problems will likely number of contractors declared bankruptcy, forcing drive the price up further. Tampa Bay Water to purchase the plant and assume full risk. Excessive membrane fouling was also problematic, decreasing the life of the mem- Careful examination of the project’s cost claims branes and increasing costs. The plant also violated should caution desalination advocates against its sewer discharge permit because additional chem- excessive optimism on price, and indeed, cost-cut- icals were needed to clean the fouled membranes. ting is in part responsible for the project’s difficul- ties. Moreover, the project had a number of unique conditions that may be difficult to reproduce else- In November 2004, Tampa Bay Water agreed to a where. For example, energy costs in the region are $29 million, two-year contract with American very low – around $0.04 per kilowatt-hour – com- Water-Pridesa (both owned by Thames Water Aqua pared to other coastal urban areas. The physical Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of RWE) to design of the plant – sited at a local power plant – get the plant running. Tests revealed that mem- permitted the power plant to provide infrastruc- brane fouling was still a problem and many of the ture, supporting operations, and maintenance func- water pumps had rust and corrosion problems. tions. Salinity of the source water from Tampa Bay Both problems have been attributed to cost-cutting is substantially lower than typical seawater: only (Pittman 2005). about 26,000 ppm instead of 33,000 to 40,000 ppm typical for most seawater. In addition, To further complicate matters, SWFWMD threat- financing was to be spread out over 30 years, and ened to withhold financing for the plant because of the interest rate was only 5.2 percent (Wright a disagreement with Tampa Bay Water about the 1999). capacity at which the plant would operate. In January 2006, the water authorities agreed that the

35 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 25 Desalination in California Like the rest of the country, desalination has traditionally been a minor component of California’s water-supply portfolio. The Wangnick/GWI (2005) database lists nearly 350 desalination plants larger than 0.3 MGD 3 /d) installed or contracted in California since 1955, with a cumu- (100 m 3 /d) (of which around lative installed capacity of 230 MGD (870,000 m 3 /d) is listed as ocean desalination). By comparison, 40 MGD (150,000 m the estimated water use in California in 2000 was 40,000 MGD (150 3 /d) for urban and agricultural purposes. Most desalination million m facilities are small industrial plants that provide high-quality water for plant operations or cooling. Like the rest of the U.S., California’s installed capacity appears on paper to be increasing at around 7% annually (Figure 9). Figure 9 1,000,000 250 Time-Series of California Desalination 00,000 9 Capacity, January 2005 800,000 200 The bars show annual new installed capacity, and D /d G 700,000 3 the line shows cumulative installed capacity. 6 00,000 º 150 apacity C talled s umulative In C Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 500,000 apacity – M apacity – m C C 400,000 100 talled talled s s 300,000 In In 200,000 50 100,000 0 0 1 0 2000 99 1 9 55 1 96 80 1 9 9 70 1 0 In actuality, California’s desalination capacity appears to be far less than that reported in the Wangnick/GWI database. In a recent report, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) compiled a list of the desalination facilities currently in operation along the California coast (CCC 2004). The CCC lists about ten, mostly small, desalination facilities along 3 California’s coast with a total capacity of 6.1 MGD (23,000 m /d) (Table 3). By contrast, the Wangnick/GWI database lists about 20 seawater 3 /d), nearly desalination plants with a capacity of 40 MGD (150,000 m seven times greater than the estimate produced by CCC (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Table B-1 in Appendix B attempts to reconcile the Wangnick/GWI 8 As this data (2005) on seawater desalination plants with the CCC data. table notes, the Wangnick/GWI data overestimates the total capacity by including plants that have not been built, have been built but never oper- ated, have been built but are no longer in operation, or were small test facilities. We were unable to get definitive information about all facilities in the Wangnick/GWI database because repeated attempts to contact pri- vate companies about the status of their desalination plants were ignored. Appendix B is available online at 8 The actual installed capacity is likely closer to the CCC data, although . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination Figures 10-12 are based on data from Wangnick/GWI (2005).

36 CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION 26 Status pacity Maximum Ca Ownership Purpose Operator/Location 3 MGD m /d Active Chevron/Gaviota Industrial processing Private 0.4 1,550 Intermittent use City of Morro Bay Municipal/domestic Public 0.6 2,270 City of Santa Barbara 10,600 2.8 Public Municipal/domestic Decommissioned Duke Energy/Morro Bay Industrial processing Private 0.4 1,630 Not known 0.5 Private Industrial processing Duke Energy/Moss Landing Active 1,820 0.3 Marina Coast Water District Municipal/domestic Public Temporarily idle 1,140 Monterey Bay Aquarium 150 0.04 Non-profit Aquarium visitor use Active Not known PG&E/Diablo Canyon Industrial processing Private 0.6 2,180 Santa Catalina Island Inactive 500 0.1 Public Municipal/domestic Government Municipal/domestic 0.02 90 Not known U.S. Navy/Nicholas Island Private Oil and gas companies 0.002-0.03 8-110 Active Platform uses Figure 10 shows California’s cumulative installed capacity by user. Nearly Table 3 57% of the reported ocean desalination capacity was designed for munic- Desalination Facilities Located ipal purposes. Industrial uses account for 23% of the cumulative installed Along the California Coast capacity. Power plants use 18% of the cumulative installed capacity to produce fresh water for boilers and cooling systems. Source: CCC 2004, Baucher 2006 Other Figure 10 1% California Installed Desalination Power trial Indu s Capacity by User, January 2005 18% 23% Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 º Irrigation 1% Municipal 57% California’s cumulative installed capacity by process is shown in Figure 11. Reliance on RO (85%) may be due, in part, to the fact that desalina- tion didn’t take hold in California until 1990, coinciding with when RO technology was experiencing rapid growth worldwide due to improve- ments in the technology for creating and maintaining membranes.

37 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 27 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Figure 11 MED 2% California Desalination Capacity Other 2% by Process, January 2005 NF V C 5% 2% ED ED = electrodialysis 4% M S F MED = multi-effect distillation 0% MSF = multi-stage flash NF = nanofiltration Other = freeze, hybrid, thermal, and all other processes RO = reverse osmosis VC = vapor compression Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005 RO 85% The source water for desalination in California differs from the rest of the U.S. Figure 12 shows the cumulative desalination capacity by source water. Like the rest of the U.S., brackish water is the largest supply source, accounting for 43% of the cumulative installed capacity. Seawater and wastewater, however, are more important supply sources in California than in other states due to California’s proximity to the ocean and greater emphasis on recycling and reuse to meet its water demands 3 /d), or 17% of than in other states. Approximately 40 MGD (150,000 m the reported capacity, is designed to desalinate seawater, compared to 7% on average in the rest of the U.S. About 14% of the desalination capacity in California is used with wastewater, compared to only 9% on average in the rest of the U.S. Wa te s Figure 12 14% California Desalination Capacity by Source Water, January 2005 Source: Wangnick/GWI 2005. h Bracki s S ea 43% 17% River 18% Brine Pure <1% 8% One of the largest ocean desalination plants in California was built in the 1990s in Santa Barbara in response to serious water-supply constraints and a persistent drought. This plant also never operated commercially and proved to be an expensive burden (Box 4), though it still appears in the Wangnick/GWI database.

38 28 CURRENT STATUS OF DESALINATION Box 4: The Experience of the Santa Barbara Desalination Plant The City of Santa Barbara’s experience with desali- as the cost to produce the water was too high to nation should caution local communities planning warrant use during non-drought periods. In addi- desalination facilities. Between 1987 and 1992, tion, the high cost of building the plant and con- California experienced an extended drought. This necting to the State Water Project raised water drought was felt particularly strongly in the coastal prices high enough to encourage substantial addi- Santa Barbara region, where water resource tional conservation, further decreasing need for the options are limited: Santa Barbara relies extensively plant. on rainfall and local groundwater to meet its water needs. By 1991, Santa Barbara residents were faced Water demand never fully rebounded after the with a severe shortage. The city’s few reservoirs drought. Conservation measures implemented were rapidly drying up despite successful conserva- during the drought, such as low-flow toilets and tion efforts that reduced water use by nearly 40 low-water-use gardens, continued to provide water percent. City officials requested proposals to iden- savings. In addition, connection to the State Water tify a new water source. As fears mounted, Santa Project through construction of the Coastal Branch Barbara residents overwhelmingly approved con- Pipeline, which was completed in 1997, provided 3 struction of an emergency desalination plant as /d) at a cost of an additional 2.7 MGD (10,000 m 3 well as a piped connection to the proposed Central ) (CalPoly 2005, City around $4.60/kgal ($1.22/m Coast Branch of the State Water Project. of Santa Barbara 2005). The cost of water from the State Water Project will decline as 35-year bonds are repaid. In 1991, the City of Santa Barbara partnered with the Montecito and Goleta Water Districts to con- struct a 7,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) RO desali- At the end of the five-year repayment contract, the 9 Over the nation facility at a cost of $34 million. Montecito and Goleta Water Districts opted out of five-year repayment period, the City of Santa the agreement, and the City of Santa Barbara Barbara and the Montecito and Goleta Water became the sole owner of the facility. In January Districts paid the capital cost of the facility as well 2000, the City of Santa Barbara sold over half of as the cost to produce the water or maintain the the plant’s capacity to a company in Saudi Arabia. facility in standby mode. The cost of the water was The new capacity of the desalination plant is 2.8 3 3 ), estimated to be roughly $4.60/kgal ($1.22/m /d). Not foreseeing use for the MGD (11,000 m which was substantially more expensive than local facility in the short term, the facility has been supplies. decommissioned and components that are expen- sive to maintain in standby mode were removed. The facility now “serves as a sort of insurance Construction of the desalination plant began in policy, allowing the City to use its other supplies May 1991. The plant was completed in March more fully” (City of Santa Barbara 2005). Restart 1992 and successfully produced water during start- costs and the amount of time needed to get the up and testing. Shortly after construction was com- plant running remain uncertain. pleted, however, the drought ended. The desalina- tion facility was placed in an active standby mode, 9 This plant was designed with a capacity in acre-feet. This is equivalent to 6.7 MGD 3 /d). (25,000 m

39 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 29 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE CHAPTER III CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION ALIFORNIA IS CURRENTLY in the midst of a surge in interest in desalination, far exceeding any time during the past few decades. C This new interest is the result of a number of factors, including technological improvements and cost reductions in desalination, ongoing water management and scarcity concerns, and increased commercializa- tion and promotion efforts on the parts of private desalination companies and promoters. There are currently more than 20 proposed desalination plants along California’s coast (Figure 13), 12 of which are considerably larger than any previously built in the state. Table 4 lists the major pro- posed projects as of early 2006. With one exception, all of the proposed plants employ RO to treat ocean, estuarine, or brackish water. The total 3 /d), capacity of the proposed plants is around 450 MGD (1.7 million m which would represent a massive 70-fold increase over current seawater desalination capacity. If all of these plants were built, seawater desalina- tion would supply 6% of California’s 2000 urban water use. Below we summarize the major proposed projects and their status as of mid 2006. Note that details on each plant can change very rapidly, and readers interested in the status of specific plants should seek more up-to-date information.

40 30 CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION Figure 13 Map of Proposed Desalination Plants in California as of Spring 2006 3 /d) > 20 MGD (76,000 m ALIFORNIA C 3 5 – 20 MGD (19,000 – 76,000 m /d) 3 /d) < 5 MGD (19,000 m C rockett S an Rafael S F Bay Regional Plant Montara Landing ss Mo (2) anta S C ruz and (2) ity S C Marina Ocean View Plaza ambria C Oceano Playa Del Rey egundo El S Dana Point Long Beach Huntington Beach C amp Pendleton bad (2) arl s C Table 4 (Opposite Page) Proposed Desalination Plants in California, Spring 2006 WW: waste water Northern California As of spring 2006, four desalination plants are proposed in Northern California, far fewer than in Central or Southern California (Figure 13). This is in part because water shortage concerns in this region are much less severe than in other parts of the state. The purposes of the proposed plants vary, ranging from improved reliability during droughts and emer- gencies to meeting anticipated growth needs and providing environmental benefits. With the exception of the Marin Municipal Water District, which is operating a pilot plant, agencies in Northern California are still in the early planning stages, and no project is likely to be built before 2010. Water from three of the plants would provide municipal supply, and one would provide water solely for industrial purposes. All are pro- posed by public agencies. The plants are described in greater detail below. Marin Municipal Water District The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is proposing to build a 3 /d) desalination plant in San Rafael. The 10-15 MGD (38,000-57,000 m plant would take water from the San Francisco Bay and mix the brine with wastewater effluent before discharging it back into the Bay. A pilot plant began operating in June 2005 and is expected to run into Spring 2006. Results from the pilot plant will help MMWD with project design

41 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 31 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Discharge Intake pacity Co-located? Max Ca Location Operator 3 m MGD /d Mixed with WW Surface 38,000-57,000 10-15 No San Rafael Marin Municipal Water District 20-80 Not known East Bay Municipal Utility 76,000-300,000 Pittsburg/Oakland/ Likely Surface Oceanside District/San Francisco Public Utilities Commission/Contra Costa Water District/Santa Clara Valley Water District N/A 5,700 1.5 No Crockett East Bay Municipal Utility Surface District No N/A N/A N/A N/A Montara Water and Montara Sanitary District Mixed with WW Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz Surface 2.5, possible 9,500, possible No expansion to expansion 17,000 to 4.5 California American Moss Landing Yes 11-12 42,000-45,000 Surface Surface Water Company 76,000-95,000 Surface Surface Pajaro-Sunny Mesa/Poseidon Moss Landing Yes 20-25 No City of Sand City Sand City 0.3 1,100 Subsurface Subsurface 28,000 Subsurface Monterey Peninsula Water Sand City No 7.5 Subsurface Management District Subsurface Subsurface 4,900 1.3 No Marina Marina Coast Water District Surface Surface Cannery Row Ocean View Plaza No 190 0.05 0.4 1,500 Subsurface Subsurface Cambria Community Services Cambria No District/Department of the Army Arroyo Grande/Grover Beach/ Oceano No 1.9 7,100 Subsurface Mixed with WW Oceano Community Services District 45,000 to 95,000 Surface Mixed w/ cooling Los Angeles Department of Yes 12-25 Playa Del Rey water or WW Water and Power Surface Surface 76,000 20 Yes El Segundo West Basin Municipal Water District Subsurface Long Beach Water Department Long Beach 8.9 34,000 Subsurface No Surface Poseidon Resources Surface 190,000 50 Yes Huntington Beach Subsurface Mixed with WW 95,000 No Dana Point Municipal Water District of 25 Orange County 190,000, expanding Surface Surface San Diego County Water Camp Pendleton Yes 50, to 380,000 Authority/Municipal Water expanding District of Orange County to 100 Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Yes 50, possible 190,000, possible Surface Surface expansion expansion to to 80 300,000 50, possible 190,000, possible Surface San Diego County Carlsbad Surface Yes Water Authority expansion expansion to 300,000 to 80

42 32 CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION and be used to prepare required environmental assessments. The new water is supposed to help meet growth needs as projected in city and county planning documents and provides an alternative to building a new pipeline to the Russian River (MMWD 2006). East Bay Municipal Utility District/San Francisco Public Utility The purposes of the Commission/Contra Costa Water District/Santa Clara Valley proposed Northern Water District California plants Four San Francisco Bay Area utilities are exploring the option of building vary, ranging from a regional desalination plant with a total capacity of between 20-80 3 /d). The facility would provide supplemental MGD (76,000-300,000 m improved reliability long-term supply, drought and emergency supply, and alternative backup during droughts and when current facilities “are taken out of service for inspection, mainte- nance, or repairs” (EBMUD 2005). Sites being considered include emergencies to meeting Pittsburg, Oakland, and Oceanside. The utilities completed an initial anticipated growth study in October 2003 and are preparing detailed feasibility and environ- mental studies. Even with an aggressive construction and development needs and providing schedule, the facility would be completed no earlier than 2010 (EBMUD environmental benefits. 2005). East Bay Municipal Utility District In addition to the Bay Area regional desalination plant, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is evaluating a separate option to 3 /d) desalination plant at the C&H build a small 1.5 MGD (5,700 m Sugar refinery in Crockett. The water would replace potable water that is currently used at the sugar factory, making it available for other EBMUD customers (EBMUD 2005). Montara Water and Sanitary District Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD), located between Half Moon Bay and San Francisco, received a state grant in 2005 to conduct a desalination feasibility study that will examine the possibility of using beach wells for providing source water for this small community. The project would be very small, although few details are available at this time. Central California Nine desalination plants are proposed for Central California, the most of the three California regions (Figure 13). Concerns about drought, water- supply constraints, and growth moratoriums are prevalent in this part of the state, thus accounting for high levels of interest. The total capacity of 3 /d), but the size of these plants would be about 48 MGD (180,000 m individual plants ranges from less than 0.30 MGD to 25 MGD. Three of the nine proposed plants are fully or partly supported by private compa- nies. Proposed plants are described in greater detail below.

43 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 33 City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz is considering building a desalination plant with 3 /d). The plant would take water an initial capacity of 2.5 MGD (9,500 m from the ocean through an abandoned wastewater effluent pipe and mix the brine with wastewater prior to releasing it to the ocean. The City has Nine desalination suggested it would use the plant only during droughts but may opt to sell surplus water during non-drought periods to the Soquel Creek Water plants are proposed 3 /d) would District. As demand grows, increments of 1.0 MGD (3,800 m for Central California, be added to the plant for drought protection up to a final capacity of 4.5 3 /d). In the future, the plant may also be used to provide MGD (17,000 m the most of the three a baseline water supply. In May 2005, the City received Proposition 50 California regions. 10 The City expects the plant to be grant funds to construct a pilot plant. on line in 2010 (City of Santa Cruz 2005). California American Water Company California American Water Company (Cal Am) is proposing to co-locate 3 /d) desalination plant at the Duke an 11-12 MGD (42,000-45,000 m Energy site in Moss Landing. The water provided by the desalination plant would offset water diversions from the Carmel River, as required by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10 (see the “Environmental Benefits” section for more detail), and overpumping of the Seaside groundwater basin (Townsley 2006). As of early 2006, Cal Am has provided its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) envi- ronmental documentation to the California Public Utilities Commission, which is acting as lead agency on the project, and is seeking to secure county permits to build a pilot plant. Thus far, Cal Am has been unable to secure these permits because Duke Energy has not met wetland mitiga- tion obligations associated with removing oil tanks from the property. Cal Am is in competition with the Pajaro facility (below), which hopes to use some of the same infrastructure. Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District/ Poseidon Resources Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District and Poseidon Resources 3 /d) desalination are proposing to build a 20-25 MGD (76,000-95,000 m plant, also at the Duke Energy facility in Moss Landing. The plant would use Duke Energy’s intake and outfall infrastructure but would be located at the former National Refractories site, adjacent to Duke Energy. Pajaro- Sunny Mesa and Poseidon are seeking to secure county permits to build a pilot plant. The county has indicated that they intend to provide the appropriate permits (Hennessey 2006a). Local groups appealed the per- mits to the CCC, which expects to issue a staff recommendation in mid June (Howe 2006). This plant is in direct competition with the Cal Am plant described above. City of Sand City 10 Proposition 50, approved by California voters in 3 /d) desalina- The City of Sand City plans to build a 0.3 MGD (1,100 m 2002, provides grant money to public agencies tion plant. The plant would take brackish water via beach wells and dis- for projects that promote development of new charge the brine, which the proponents state would not exceed salinity water supplies using desalination technologies.

44 34 CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION levels of 35 parts per thousand, into injection wells. Cal Am would operate the plant, and the City has issued a request for proposals for the design and construction of the plant. Initially, the City would sell the water produced by the desalination plant to Cal Am, who would use the water to offset water diversions from the Carmel River, as required by SWRCB Order 95-10. Over time, the City would reduce the amount of water it sells to Cal Am in order to meet its growth needs. The CCC approved the plant in May 2005. The City expects the plant to be fully operational by June 2007 (Hennessey 2006b). Monterey Peninsula Water Management District The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) pro- 3 /d) desalination plant in Sand City. posed to build a 7.5 MGD (28,000 m The plant would use wells for water intake and brine discharge. The pro- duced water would offset water diversions from the Carmel River, as required by SWRCB Order 95-10. In 2004, the MPWMD placed the project on hold, opting to pursue a regional desalination plant at Moss Landing (MPWMD 2005a). Marina Coast Water District The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) is proposing to replace an idle desalination plant with a larger plant. The new plant, which would 3 /d), is part of a plan to meet have a capacity of about 1.3 MGD (4,900 m water-supply needs that includes building a recycling plant of the same capacity. The water would satisfy future needs of the Fort Ord commu- 3 /d) would be nity, and a small amount (less than 0.3 MGD, or 1,000 m available for the current needs of the greater Monterey Peninsula. The plant would use beach wells for water intake and brine discharge. The MCWD Board of Directors endorsed the plan in June 2005 and is scoping the project to develop specific plans (Marina Coast Water District 2005). Ocean View Plaza, Monterey The developers of Ocean View Plaza in the City of Monterey propose to 3 /d) build a small desalination plant with a capacity of 0.05 MGD (190 m to provide water for a new development along Cannery Row. The Monterey City Council approved the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in October 2002. A Superior Court judge ruled that the EIR was incomplete in September 2003, and in response, the City Council vacated their previous certification and approval. A Supplement EIR was prepared to address the issues raised by the Superior Court judge (CCC 2005). In June 2004, the Monterey City Council approved the develop- ment project. Because county and state laws require a local entity to own and operate the plant, the developers organized a community service dis- trict. The Monterey City Council would serve as the new district’s board of directors. A local community organization, Save Our Waterfront, filed a lawsuit against the City of Monterey, its City Council, and the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission in February 2006 because it claims that the decision to form the district is based on an outdated EIR (Reynolds 2006).

45 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 35 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Cambria Community Services District Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) is proposing to build a 0.4 3 /d) desalination plant in Cambria. The water would pro- MGD (1,500 m vide drought protection for the District’s current residents and would meet the needs of those on the water waitlist. It would also “mitigate the potential impacts of MTBE contamination” and allow current residents to increase their water use (CCSD 2006). CCSD secured $4 million in funding from the federal government to conduct design, permitting, and environmental studies. Because it would be funded with federal money, the Army Corp of Engineers would manage the project. CCSD completed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2005 and is con- ducting additional studies. City of Arroyo Grande/City of Grover Beach/Oceano Community Services District 3 /d) The project partners are proposing to build a 1.9 MGD (7,100 m desalination plant in Oceano at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant site. The plant would use seawater from wells on or near the beach and mix the brine with waste- water prior to discharge. The water would meet future water-supply needs for the three communities and is an alternative to a pipeline exten- sion that would deliver water from Lake Nacimiento. The project part- ners are preparing a grant application for state funds to prepare a detailed feasibility study (City of Arroyo Grande 2006). Concerns about Southern California drought reliability, Eight desalination plants are proposed for Southern California as of early population growth, 2006 (Figure 13). Although Central California has more plant proposals, the capacity of the proposed plants in Southern California is substantially and the desire to 3 /d). Over half of the proposed larger, at around 300 MGD (1.1 million m reduce dependence facilities would co-locate with existing power plants that use once- through cooling (OTC) systems. Concerns about drought reliability, pop- on water from the ulation growth, and the desire to reduce dependence on water from the Sacramento-San Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Colorado River have created a high degree of interest in pursuing desalination in Southern California. Two of Joaquin Delta and the plants are supported by private companies and are further along than Colorado River have any of the other proposed plants in California. Proposed plants are described in greater detail below. created a high degree of interest in pursuing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power desalination in Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is proposing to Southern California. 3 /d) desalination plant at the co-locate a 12-25 MGD (45,000-95,000 m Scattergood Generating Station in Playa Del Rey. According to the LADWP Urban Water Management Plan (2005), desalinated water would offset water committed from the Los Angeles Aqueduct for environmental restoration in the eastern Sierra Nevada. LADWP has conducted a fatal flaw assessment and is now conducting additional feasibility studies. LADWP expects the plant to be operational no earlier than 2015 (LADWP 2005).

46 36 CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION West Basin Municipal Water District West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) is proposing to co- 3 /d) desalination plant at the El Segundo locate a 20 MGD (76,000 m power plant in El Segundo. The power plant cooling water would provide source water for the desalination plant as well as a means to discharge the brine. The District has operated a 40 gallons-per-minute pilot plant and was awarded Proposition 50 grant funding to build a 0.5 MGD 3 /d) demonstration facility in May 2005. The demonstration (1,900 m facility would be located within the West Basin service area (WBMWD 2005). Long Beach Water Department The Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) is considering constructing 3 /d) desalination plant in Long Beach. The plant an 8.9 MGD (34,000 m would intake water from collector wells located under the ocean floor and discharge the brine through a second set of subsurface laterals. 3 /d) pilot plant to test LBWD has been operating a 9,000 gallon/d (34 m the feasibility of using NF membranes in two passes in order to reduce the energy consumption over the more conventional single-pass RO sea- water desalination process. The testing, which was formalized in an American Water Works Association Research Foundation-funded project, indicated that up to a 30% energy savings may potentially be achieved through the use of the NF membranes. Based on this research, LBWD, in partnership with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, began operating a 0.30 MGD (1,100 3 /d) prototype plant at the Haynes Generating Station in early 2006. m The prototype project has two objectives: compare the energy required for both the NF treatment and RO in side-by-side testing under the same finished water quality conditions; and further refine and optimize the two-pass NF membrane desalination method, termed the “Long Beach Method.” Additional research conducted at another site will examine the feasibility of subsurface intake and discharge wells. The research should conclude by 2010 (Cheng 2006, LBWD 2005a). Operation of the full-scale facility is expected to commence no earlier than 2015 if the project proves to be economically, technically, and envi- ronmentally feasible. Water produced by the desalination plant would be used within the City of Long Beach and replace water imported from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (LBWD 2005b). Poseidon Resources/Huntington Beach 3 /d) Poseidon Resources is proposing to co-locate a 50 MGD (190,000 m desalination plant with the AES Power Plant in Huntington Beach. The desalination plant would be located adjacent to the AES site. The power plant cooling water would provide source water for the desalination plant as well as a means to discharge the brine (Poseidon 2005a). The project was rejected by the Huntington Beach City Council (4-3 vote) in December of 2003 after review of the EIR. An updated EIR was narrowly approved by the City Council (4-3 vote) in September 2005 (Overley 2005). A vote on land-use permits was postponed twice due to uncer-

47 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 37 tainty about how the city would benefit from the project (Wahid 2006). The City Council approved the land-use permits in late February, and the project now moves on to the CCC and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A local citizens group, however, has appealed Poseidon Resources/ these permits with the CCC. This is one of the first big desalination pro- Huntington Beach is posals in California and is being watched carefully by both supporters and opponents of desalination. one of the first big desalination proposals Municipal Water District of Orange County in California and Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is considering is being watched 3 /d) desalination plant in Dana Point. building a 25 MGD (95,000 m carefully by both Intake water would likely be provided by a subsurface intake system, and brine would be mixed with wastewater effluent prior to discharge. Water supporters and oppo- produced by the plant would improve system reliability and provide a nents of desalination. new source for development in south Orange County. MWDOC expects to finish feasibility studies by mid-2006. Once the feasibility studies have been completed, MWDOC will decide whether to proceed with the project (MWDOC 2005). San Diego County Water Authority/Municipal Water District of Orange County San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and MWDOC are consid- 3 /d) ering the option of building a 50-100 MGD (190,000-380,000 m desalination plant at Camp Pendleton. The plant would use the intake and outfall structure from Unit 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is being decommissioned. A pre-feasibility/fatal flaw assessment was conducted in 2005, and a detailed feasibility study is cur- rently underway. The product water, which would be split equally between the project partners, provides a new supply source and would improve system reliability. Camp Pendleton also has the right to receive desalinated water via SDCWA (SDCWA 2005). Because the proposed desalination plant would be co-located with a nuclear power plant, public perception remains a formidable obstacle. To complicate this matter, the site is being used to store nuclear waste until a remote federally approved nuclear waste site opens (Jimenez 2004). San Diego County Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority is proposing to co-locate a 50 MGD 3 /d) desalination plant at the Encina Power Station in the City (190,000 m of Carlsbad. The plant may be expanded by an additional 30 MGD if it is deemed feasible. The power plant cooling water would provide source water for the desalination plant as well as a means to dilute the brine. SDCWA began an environmental impact report in 2003 and expects certi- fication by mid 2006. SDCWA has secured nearly $1.5 million in federal funding for the project and expects the plant to be operational by 2011. The City of Carlsbad has been negotiating with SDCWA to receive up to 3 /d) (SDCWA 2005). This project is in competition 4.5 MGD (17,000 m with the Poseidon/Carlsbad facility (below), which hopes to use some of the same infrastructure.

48 38 CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSED EXPANSION Poseidon Resources/Carlsbad 3 /d) Poseidon Resources in proposing to build a 50 MGD (190,000 m desalination plant at the Encina Power Station in the City of Carlsbad that directly competes with the SDCWA proposal. The desalination plant would be located on a site adjacent to the power plant and would use its intake and outfall infrastructure. The final EIR was released in late 2005, A number of critical and a demonstration facility is in operation at the site (Poseidon 2005b). conditions will have The City Council unanimously approved the project in May 2006. The City of Carlsbad and the Valley Center Municipal Water District have to be met before signed water purchase agreements with Poseidon. The Olivenhain large-scale desalination Municipal Water District has signed a letter of intent, and the Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District has a pending deal with Poseidon can become a reality. (Broderick 2006, Burge 2005). It remains to be seen whether expansion of desalination in California will occur, whether these proposals are premature, or whether other solutions to California’s long-term water challenges will be found. In the following sections we review the arguments made for and against desalination. These arguments are being made in California and wherever else desali- nation is proposed to address water supply, quality, and reliability prob- lems. Ultimately a wide range of factors will have to be considered, prob- lems overcome, and solutions found. The issues discussed in the next few sections also highlight a number of critical conditions that will have to be met before large-scale desalination can become a reality.

49 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 39 CHAPTER IV ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Economics CONOMICS IS ONE of the most important factors determining the ultimate success and extent of desalination. Desalination’s finan- E cial costs, energy demands, environmental implications, reliability, and social consequences are intertwined with economic issues. Cost Comparisons Experience to date suggests that desalinated water cannot be delivered to users in California for anything less than the cost of production, which our research indicates is unlikely to fall below the range of $3.00 to $3.50 per thousand gallons ($/kgal) (roughly $0.79 to $0.92 per cubic 3 Discussion of actual )) for even large, efficient plants. Because the cost of production meter ($/m 3 ) (MPWMD 2005b), the cost of can be as high as $8.35/kgal ($2.21/m costs has been delivered water could be in the range of $9 to $10/kgal ($2.37 to 3 muddled and muddied. $2.64/m ). This wide range is caused by the factors discussed below and the large variation in the cost of water distribution among service areas. Even the low end of this range remains above the price of water typically paid by urban water users, and far above the price paid by farmers. For example, growers in the western United States may pay as little as $0.20 3 ) for water. Even urban users rarely pay to $0.40/kgal ($0.05 to $0.10/m 3 more than $1.00 to $3.00/kgal ($0.26 to $0.79/m ). To date, the discussion of actual costs has been muddled and muddied because estimates have been provided in a variety of units, years, and A cost of AUD$1.44 per kilolitre is presented for 11 ways that are not readily comparable. For example, some authors report seawater desalination, and compared with a cost the cost of desalinated water delivered to customers (Table 1-2 in NAS of AUD$1.35 per kilolitre for recycled wastewater. 2004), while others present the cost of produced water prior to distribu- The description of the latter project includes tion (e.g., Semiat 2000, Chaudhry 2003, Karnal and Tusel 2004, Figure separate distribution to customers, but it is not 1-6 in NAS 2004, Segal 2004, Wilf and Bartels 2005). These costs are not clear if the former number includes distribution comparable. In some cases, it is not clear what values are being reported, 11 (Sydney Morning Herald 2006). The basis for these as in a recent story in the Sydney Morning Herald.

50 40 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Thermal desalination costs are not in the table. 12 cost estimates is often obscure, failing to clearly state such underlying Awerbuch (2004) reports that Abu Dhabi recently variables as the year and type of estimate (actual operating experience, completed a 50 MGD MSF plant and claims the bid, or engineer’s estimate), interest rate, amortization period, energy 3 ). plant produces water at $2.65/kgal ($0.70/m cost, salinity of the source water, environmental conditions, and presence By contrast, the cost of thermal desalination in or absence of subsidies. The effect of these variables on the cost of desali- Kuwait is reportedly between $5.03 and nation is discussed in greater detail below. 3 ) (Al Fraij et al. $6.93/kgal ($1.33 and $1.83/m 2004). Table 5 is an effort to standardize the reported costs of produced water from RO seawater desalination plants around the world. These values 12 When necessary, we have converted the esti- exclude distribution costs. Table 5 mates to U.S. dollars per thousand gallons (US$/kgal), but we have not Summary of Reported First-Year Cost of adjusted the apparent year of each reported cost for inflation since infla- Produced Water for RO Plants tion varies from country to country. Even without adjustment to current- year dollars, it is apparent from the table that costs vary far more widely 1 May include conveyance costs from the desal- than can be explained by inflation. ination facility to the existing distribution mains. 2 May include some or all distribution costs. 3 US$/kgal US$/m Operational? Year Source Facility or Location (first year) (first year) EDS (2004), Segal (2004), Zhou & Tol (2005) 2002 Yes 0.54 2.03 Ashkelon, Israel Ashkelon, Israel 2003 NAS (2004) 2.00 Yes 0.53 0.55 Yes Wilf & Bartels (2005) 2004 Ashkelon, Israel 2.10 Red Herring (2005), Semiat (2006) 0.62 Yes 2005 Ashkelon, Israel 2.34 Bahamas 2003 NAS (2004) 1.48 Yes ? 5.60 Carlsbad, CA (Poseidon) San Diego Daily Transcript (2005) 2005 No 0.77 2.90 Dhekelia, Cyprus 4.14 1.09 Yes 1996 Segal (2004) Dhekelia, Cyprus 5.40 1.43 Yes 2003 NAS (2004) 0.74 Wilf & Bartels (2005) Yes 1997 ? 2.80 Eilat, Israel EDS (2004), Segal (2004) Hamma, Algiers 3.19 0.84 No 2003 Segal (2004) Larnaca, Cyprus 2.84 0.75 Yes 2000 NAS (2004) 3.20 0.85 Yes 2003 Larnaca, Cyprus Larnaca, Cyprus 3.23 0.85 Yes 2001 ? Wilf & Bartels (2005) MPWMD (2005b) 1.28[1] No Moss Landing, CA (Cal Am) 4.75[1] 2005 0.96 No 2005 MPWMD (2005b) Moss Landing, CA (Poseidon) 3.63 3.49 Water Technology (2006) Perth, Australia 2005 0.92 No Segal (2004) 2002 0.46 Yes 1.75 Singapore 2003 NAS (2004) 1.70 Singapore 0.45 Yes 4.21[2] 1.11[2] Sydney, Australia No Four bids from 1999 Tampa Bay, FL Semiat (2000) 0.46 to 0.58 1.75 to 2.18 0.55 No 2003 Segal (2004) Tampa Bay, FL 2.10 Tampa Bay, FL 2.18 0.58 No 2003 ? Wilf & Bartels (2005) Arroyo (2004) ? Tampa Bay, FL 2.49 0.66 No ? 0.73 Yes 2.77 Segal (2004) Trinidad 2003 0.74 2.80 Trinidad NAS (2004) Yes

51 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 41 Subsidies Hidden and visible subsidies affect the reported and actual costs. For example, all four bids for the Tampa Bay project were in the range of 3 ) in 1999 (Semiat 2000). They $1.75 to $2.18/kgal ($0.46 to $0.58/m were among the lowest costs ever proposed for a significant desalination project, in part because a Florida regulatory entity provided low-cost cap- ital. Similarly, five projects in Southern California have qualified for a 3 ) subsidy from the Metropolitan Water District of $0.77/kgal ($0.20/m Southern California (MWD). The proposed Poseidon project in Carlsbad 3 ) without this subsidy (San is reported to cost about $2.90/kgal ($0.77/m 3 ) with the Diego Daily Transcript 2005) and about $2.15/kgal ($0.57/m subsidy. Since water customers in Southern California ultimately pay for the subsidy, the subsidized cost is potentially misleading. Sometimes the subsidies are more difficult to quantify. The Ashkelon, Israel desalination plant that opened in August 2005 involved initial pay- 3 ). The land on which the plant is ments of about $2.00/kgal ($0.53/m constructed, however, was provided at no cost by the Israeli government (Semiat 2006). As a result, it is misleading to compare the cost of Ashkelon with that of a new facility on the California coast, where land Energy is the largest is expensive. single variable cost for a desalination Energy Costs plant, varying from Energy is the largest single variable cost for a desalination plant, varying one-third to more from one-third to more than one-half the cost of produced water (Chaudhry 2003). Semiat (2000) reports that electrical energy use than one-half the cost accounts for 44% of the typical water costs of an RO plant, with the of produced water. remainder from other operation and maintenance expenses and fixed charges (amortization of capital) (Figure 14). Thermal plants use even more energy. Wangnick (2002) reports that in a very large thermal sea- water desalination plant, energy costs account for nearly 60% of the typ- ical cost of produced water (Figure 15). At these percentages, a 25% increase in energy cost would increase the cost of produced water by 11% and 15% for RO and thermal plants, respectively. Unless there is a way to greatly reduce the actual amount of energy used in desalination processes, the share of desalination costs attributable to energy will rise as energy prices rise. s s on C umable 3% Figure 14 Typical Costs for a Reverse-Osmosis s Maintenance and Part 7% Desalination Plant Membrane Replacement Source: USBR and SNL 2003 5% Labor 4% Electrical Energy 44% t o C Fixed s 37%

52 42 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Figure 15 C hemical s Typical Costs for a Very Large Seawater 3% Thermal Desalination Plant Labor 6 % Source: Wangnick 2002 Thermal Energy C o s t Fixed 50% 32% Electrical Energy % 9 The data in Table 5 show a dependency on energy costs, although it is somewhat blurred by other costs. The facilities with the lowest reported costs – Ashkelon, Tampa Bay, and Singapore – either had or expected to have low energy costs in the first year. Velter (undated) and Segal (2004) report initial energy costs of around $0.04 per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh) for both Ashkelon and Tampa Bay. However, at least one higher-cost facility (Trinidad) also reported a low initial energy cost of $0.04/kWh, so energy does not explain all or even most of the variation in reported cost. Costs at the less expensive facilities are on the rise. Ashkelon, for example, was reportedly constructed on time and on budget; however, the cost of produced water has already increased by about 17%, a seeming Efforts to reuse energy reflection of higher-than-anticipated fuel costs at the new, on-site energy production facility (Jerusalem Post 2005). The Singapore contract con- or minimize energy tains an energy price escalator that does not take effect until the fourth demands will help year of operation. This means the cost shown in Table 5 reflects energy prices prior to the large energy price increase of recent years. The actual reduce overall costs. cost of produced water at Tampa Bay is still uncertain due to construction 13 delays, design problems, and management changes (see Appendix C). Recent energy price increases throughout the world may drive costs even higher. Efforts to reuse energy or minimize energy demands will help reduce overall costs. While opportunities for reducing energy use certainly exist, there are ultimate limits beyond which energy-efficiency improvements cannot be made (NAS 2004). The theoretical minimum amount of energy required to remove salt from a liter of seawater using RO is around 2.8 kilojoules (or around 3 kilowatt-hours per thousand gallons (kWh/kgal) 14 3 13 Appendix C is available online at Even the most efficient )). or 1 kilowatt-hour per cubic meter (kWh/m . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination plants now operating use as little as 4 times the theoretical minimum; 14 Not accounting for the inefficiency of conversion some use up to 25 times the theoretical minimum (Chaudhry 2003, Wilf from thermal to electrical energy, as required by and Bartels 2005, EDWR 2006, Water Technology 2006). If current best 3 some desalination systems. ), the minimum energy cost practice uses around 12 kWh/kgal (3 kWh/m 3 www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/weighted_ 15 See ) if electricity is $0.10/kWh. Utility-wide will be $1.20/kgal ($0.32/m avg_retail_prices.html for data by utility since weighted average retail electricity prices in California in 2005 vary from 15 1980. Although electricity could be produced at $0.0931 to $0.1472/kWh. lower cost if a dedicated power plant was developed along with the

53 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 43 desalination plant (as was done at Ashkelon, Israel), federal and state utility laws prohibit existing power plants co-located with other facilities from selling power at a preferential rate to those facilities (CDWR 2003, CPUC 2005). Plant Size Engineers often create “cost curves” that can be used to estimate costs for various types of facilities as a function of their size. For example, a typ- ical curve might present the cost of produced water as a function of plant capacity in MGD. This curve would be based on other curves that address capital (e.g., intake structures) and operating (e.g., energy) expen- ditures per unit of capacity. All of the curves are based on a combination of actual costs, bids, and engineering estimates. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2003) compiled a comprehensive set of 16,17 The figures in Chapter 7 of that cost curves for desalination facilities. document show two important features of the current economics of sea- water desalination: First, RO is considerably less costly than thermal processes throughout the range of sizes; second, there are economies of 18 These economies are large as one scale for all the technologies shown. moves from small (e.g., < 5.0 MGD) to medium-sized (e.g., 10-20 MGD) plants, but are not as important as one moves from medium to large (e.g., > 25 MGD) plants. A doubling of size from 2.5 to 5.0 MGD, for example, might reduce cost by 30%, while a doubling from 25 to 50 MGD might reduce cost by only 10 percent. Stated in reverse, these curves imply that water produced by smaller The assumptions behind the curve are described 16 plants is much more expensive than the costs presented in Table 5, all of on page 156 of that document. The most critical, which are for medium to large plants. Costs per unit of water produced albeit unrealistic, assumptions for our purposes in small plants can be 50% to 100% higher than in large plants. For are that land cost is excluded, a groundwater well example, a small proposed plant in southern San Luis Obispo County has field is assumed for RO intake water, discharge 3 ) (Hill 2006), and an an estimated cost of about $7.35/kgal ($1.94/m pipe and environmental conditions are not even smaller proposed plant in Sand City, Monterey County has an esti- specified, and energy cost is assumed to be 3 ) (MPWMD 2005b). mated cost of $8.35/kgal ($2.21/m $0.033 per kWh. These assumptions result in much lower costs than are likely to occur in any actual plant, especially in California, where land, Other Cost Factors energy, and discharge construction costs are relatively high. Nonetheless, the cost curves are A number of other cost factors further complicate cost comparisons. For useful for comparison. example, environmental damages or the costs of environmental protec- The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also reports that 17 tion are not well understood, especially in sensitive coastal settings like © ) for a detailed computer program (WTCost California and the Persian Gulf. The experience of developers, the amor- costing membrane systems has been developed tization period, the interest rate, and regulatory issues also affect final by the Bureau, I. Moch & Associates, and Boulder costs. Research Enterprises. It is available from [email protected] The American Water Works For example, an often-overlooked cost factor is the period over which the Association (1999) also provides cost curves for facility investment is amortized. A 20-year rather than 30-year amortiza- the capital portion of reverse osmosis and tion period at 6% interest would increase the cost per unit of water pro- nanofiltration facilities but does not provide duced by about 20% over that period. In addition, development and adequate information to estimate operations and operating experience affects costs, although there is no clear trend and we maintenance costs. were unable to quantify the impact of experience. In some cases, experi- Electrodialysis, a membrane process, is not 18 ence may lower cost or may increase the likelihood of winning a contract. shown in the cost curves, presumably due to data A team that had previous experience in Eilat, Israel and Larnaca, Cyprus limitations. developed the Ashkelon facility in Israel (Semiat 2006), which is among

54 44 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION the plants with the lowest produced water cost. The Algiers facility is only somewhat more expensive than the plant in Trinidad, despite the upward trend in energy and capital costs described above. Ionics/GE is the developer of these facilities, and successful experience in Trinidad may have helped to win the contract in Algiers and temper the price increase. By contrast, a lack of experience may also result in unrealistic, and ulti- mately unobtainable, cost estimates. The development team in Tampa Bay, Florida, for example, did not have much previous experience. Problems with design, construction, and management of that plant have led to delays of nearly six years, and much higher estimated costs. Future Costs of Desalination One should use extreme caution in evaluating different estimates and claims of future desalination costs. Predictions of a facility’s costs have sometimes differed significantly from actual costs once plants were built. One should use And as noted at the beginning of this chapter, cost estimates are based on extreme caution in so many factors that simplistic comparisons are often not meaningful. evaluating different Despite these difficulties, the long-term cost trend has been downward. estimates and Until recently, many authors claimed that the trend would continue, making desalination competitive with other options. Chaudhry (2003) claims of future 3 ) in 1990 to shows a decline in California from $6.00/kgal ($1.59/m 3 desalination costs. ) of produced water in 2002, and replicates a about $2.40/kgal ($0.63/m graph from the Southern Regional Water Authority in Texas that shows a 3 ) in 1980 to a projected cost of about decline from $6.00/kgal ($1.59/m 3 ) in 2010. Zhou and Tol (2005) show that capital $3.00/kgal ($0.80/m costs have been decreasing over time by performing regressions on a worldwide dataset compiled by Wangnick (2002). However, their article reads as if this trend applies to total costs (the sum of operation and maintenance costs and capital costs), when in fact the Wangnick data set is for capital costs only. Additional improvements, such as assembly of individual membrane components into large membrane modules, or pack- aging along with valves, pumps, etc. in so-called “package plants,” may allow costs to fall somewhat further, though past trends are no indication of future ones. The capital and operating costs for desalination have decreased histori- cally in part because of declining real energy prices in the 1980s and 1990s, but even more so because of technological improvements, economies of scale associated with larger plants, and improved project management and experience. Improvements in RO technology have yielded the greatest progress in cost reduction. Salt rejection, a measure of the ability to remove salt from feed water, can be as high as 99.7% today, up from 98.5% a decade ago, while the output of product from a unit of membranes has risen from 16 to 22 thousand gallons per day (60 to 84 3 /d) (Glueckstern 1999). Membrane manufacturers are now offering m longer guarantees on membrane life, reflecting greater confidence in design and performance of the most sensitive technical component of the process. Other advances that could lead to costs savings are the develop- ment of inexpensive corrosion-resistant heat-transfer surfaces, using off- peak energy produced by base-load plants, co-generation of electricity and thermal energy, and co-locating desalination and energy plants.

55 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 45 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Despite hopeful projections from desalination proponents, the long-term objectives of reducing costs 50% by 2020 (see, for example, USBR and SNL 2003) are daunting and may not be achievable via incremental improvements. Radical new technologies or breakthroughs in both mate- rials and energy costs may be necessary to achieve this goal. While these are possible, they are certainly not easy and are unlikely to occur in the short term. Indeed, a counter-trend in reported costs is emerging, and some experts think that membrane costs are unlikely to fall much further in the near term (AWWA 2006). All of the newer cost estimates are notably higher than similar plants bid just a few years ago. The director general of the majority owner of the consortium operating the Ashkelon plant stated last year that more recent tenders for plants in Israel and elsewhere were 3 ) due to increases in the range of $3.10 to $3.90/kgal ($0.82 to $1.03/m in the cost of raw materials (e.g., steel) and energy and rising interest rates (Jerusalem Post 2005). This comment is consistent with numbers reported elsewhere. Plants under construction in Hamma, Algiers and 3 ) and Perth, Australia, for example, were bid at $3.19/kgal ($0.84/m 3 ), respectively (EDS 2004, Segal 2004, Water $3.49/kgal ($0.92/m Technology 2006). Notably, the Hamma plant is similar in size and other features (e.g., water temperature and salinity) to the Ashkelon plant, but is priced about 35% higher. Cost estimates at Moss Landing, California 3 ) in and Sydney, Australia are even higher, exceeding $4.00/kgal ($1.06/m two of three reported estimates. Higher capital and energy costs appear to have created an upward trend in overall desalination cost in recent years (Water Desalination Report 2006a and 2006b). Ultimately, no one can predict the actual cost of seawater desalination in coming years. Nonetheless, unless energy prices decline substantially, it Ultimately, no one seems unlikely that the cost of produced water in the next few years in can predict the actual California will fall below the range of $3.00 to $3.50/kgal (roughly $0.79 3 ) for even the most efficient larger plants, and costs will be to $0.92/m cost of seawater considerably higher for small plants. Environmental restrictions, land desalination in costs, and other factors unique to California (e.g., cold ocean water is more expensive to desalinate than warmer ocean water, such as in the coming years. Mediterranean) may increase costs further. Water Supply Diversity and Reliability Urban water users expect a reliable supply of high-quality water and are typically willing to pay premium prices to obtain that reliability. Water users have different requirements for reliability, and they have different approaches for judging the value of that reliability depending on a number of factors, including use, availability of alternatives, implications of losing supply, and production costs. Proponents of desalination argue that one of the important benefits of desalination is the supply reliability provided by diversifying sources, especially in arid and semi-arid climates where weather variability is high (i.e., Southern California). The production of desalinated water is largely independent of weather, and instead depends on ensuring the continued operation of the desalination infrastructure. There is also a value to new supply under local control and to increased diversity of supply as a way

56 46 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION to increase resilience to natural disasters or other threats to water sys- tems. The related issues of climate change and of local control are dis- cussed elsewhere in this report. In a region like California, the reliability value of desalination appears to be especially high. Water allocations, rights, and use are often in flux, or even dispute. Renewable natural water supplies are highly variable and increasingly overallocated or overused. Population is growing rapidly. Ecosystems are increasingly being seen as deserving of water that was once taken for human uses. Increased demands on such limited supplies affect reliability, especially during dry periods. And regional controversies threaten continued large-scale diversion of water from the north to the south, from the Colorado River basin, and from the mountains to the coastal regions. Defining and Measuring Water-Supply Reliability Various definitions of water-supply reliability exist, but the most general characteristic is consistent availability on demand. Water utilities invest substantial amounts of money to reduce the risk of supply interruptions because they understand that the cost to their customers of supply disrup- tions is often far greater than the cost of improved system reliability. For example, the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), which serves 1.2 million people on the east side of San Francisco Bay, recently invested over $200 million in a Seismic Improvement Program to strengthen the ability of their reservoirs, treatment plants, and distribu- tion systems to continue to function and provide post-earthquake fire- fighting capability after a large earthquake on the local Hayward Fault. EBMUD estimated that an earthquake that damaged the water system would cause nearly $2 billion in water-related losses (EBMUD 2005). This investment had no effect on the quality of current supply but had the sole effect of improving reliability in the event of an earthquake. The cost of this program is explicitly, and separately, reflected in customer rates. In addition to earthquakes, there are a number of threats to water-supply reliability. These include, but are not limited to, climate change, changes in runoff patterns and groundwater recharge as more impermeable sur- faces are created by land development, changes in water quality or envi- ronmental regulations, variation in important cost factors (e.g., interest rates, labor, energy), legal issues related to water rights or contracts for water deliveries, and cultural and political factors. In addition, new threats – or simply threats that already existed but were not recognized – may also arise. A number of options are available to improve reliability. Infrastructure is often built with local reliability concerns in mind, and water utilities often invest in multiple sources of supply with different levels and kinds of risks. Similarly, dams and reservoirs are used to reduce the risk of supply interruption due to drought. There is no widely accepted method for measuring water-supply relia- bility. The simplest approach is to measure the risk of projected supply falling below projected demand, on average, for a specified duration (e.g., a year). For example, a system with a reliability level of 95% implies that

57 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 47 supply will meet or exceed demand 19 times (e.g., years) out of 20. This approach has the advantage of being very simple. Like most simple approaches, however, it has drawbacks; most notably, it does not measure the severity of the water shortfalls. One can imagine a system with relia- bility of 90% that is more desirable than another system with reliability of 95% because the shortfalls in water supply in the first system are very small while the less frequent shortfalls in the second system are very large. Nonetheless, for the discussion below we use this simple definition because it allows a clear discussion of an important issue. The reliability percentages presented in the numeric illustration can be thought of as a summary statistic for all of the uncertain issues mentioned above, although in practice many of these factors are difficult to quantify accu- rately. The Value of Reliability Proponents of seawater desalination correctly point out that more reliable water is worth more. They then argue that the higher reliability justifies its higher cost. How can one evaluate this important claim? Economists typically address this question by assessing customer willingness to pay (WtP) for a slightly reduced chance of water shortages. For example, sup- pose the chance of a water shortage that would require rationing is 1 in 40 in any given year, but an investment in a new reservoir can reduce that chance to 1 in 41. If additional water isn’t needed (except in severe drought), then customer WtP for the reservoir is a measure of the value customers place on increased reliability. Numerous economic studies have estimated WtP for avoiding drought-related or other restrictions on water uses, ranging from $32 to $421 (2003 dollars) per household per year (Carson and Mitchell 1987, Griffin and Mjelde 2000). When the esti- mated quantity of water use forgone due to a drought restriction is multi- plied by the probability (frequency) of the drought scenario investigated, The Pacific Institute these annual household WtP estimates imply a reliability value to residen- developed a method 3 ) (Raucher et al. tial customers as high as about $12.00/kgal ($3.20/m 2005). These numbers reflect the value of a little more water when a for adjusting estimated severe shortage exists, not its value under average circumstances. unit costs of Unfortunately, this approach alone does not answer our question: How water-supply options. does one evaluate the claim that water reliability justifies the cost of a desalination facility? Customers do not need to know how reliability will increase in order to value it. Customers are not saying anything about the relative value of different options for increasing reliability. Customers are only saying that greater reliability – regardless of source – has a value. Consequently, the Pacific Institute developed a method for adjusting esti- mated unit costs of water-supply options (including conservation and end-use efficiency). The method borrows and adapts tools from financial 19 It leads to constant-reliability-benefit unit costs that portfolio theory. provide a more fair comparison between supply options with different uncertainty characteristics. 19 This work was supported in part by the U.S. The method involves a two-step process. In the first step, water managers Bureau of Reclamation. See Wolff and Kasower define the level of reliability benefit they want to maintain or achieve. For (2006). example, they might want to ensure that enough water is available to

58 48 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION meet demand in 39 out of 40 years, on average. In the second step, they create an “apples to apples” comparison of options by adjusting average unit costs to get constant-reliability-benefit unit costs. The following example briefly illustrates the method. The relevant mathematics are pre- 20 sented in Appendix D. Illustration of Constant-Reliability-Benefit Unit Costs Suppose a community is served by a run-of-the-river water supply. Figure 16 shows water available from the river for human extractive purposes 21 The average flow is the most each year as having a normal distribution. 22 Our example assumes the extractable yield in common level of flow. average years is 10,000 acre-feet (AF), and the standard deviation of annual flow is 1,000 AF. Low and high flows are increasingly rare as they get further from the average. The relative flatness of the bell is described by the standard deviation of the normal distribution. The larger the stan- dard deviation as a percentage of the mean (this ratio is called the coeffi- cient of variance), the flatter the bell, and the more variable the annual flow available for human extractive purposes. Figure 16 D { N Reliability in a Run-of-the-River Water-Supply System D D F E s Percent of Year 10,000 (Avg.) D) 8,000 (Avg. – 2 S 20 Appendix D is available online at . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination Unit of Annual Flow s 21 The normal distribution is used for convenience. The average flow and the flow two standard deviations below the average Hydrologic phenomena are usually better are marked in Figure 16. A property of the normal distribution is that in described by other distributions, e.g., log-normal, 2.5% of the years, flow will be less than the lower of these two marks. In Pearson Type III. our illustration, the flow two standard deviations below the mean is 8,000 AFY. Flow available for human use will be lower than the lower We use AF as the unit of water volume here, but 22 mark (8,000 AFY) in only 1 out of every 40 years over a long period of any units are possible, of course. time. We define drought-year demand as the demand 23 Now let us consider demand. The demand numbers in our illustration are that would exist when flow is at a point chosen conveniently chosen to match some of the numbers in the description of by the planner on the horizontal axis of Figure 16 supply, above. Any other numbers could be assumed, but they would – in this case, demand when flow is at the lower make the illustration harder to follow. Assume that current drought-year tick mark. Note that drought-year demand will 23 E in Figure 16) is at the lower tick mark. Then the demand (labeled D often be higher than average year demand community served by this water system will experience a water shortage because outdoor water use will increase when only 1 year out of 40. As defined above, this is a reliability level of 97.5 rainfall is below average or temperature is above percent. average.

59 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 49 Suppose drought-year demand is projected to grow by 2,000 AF over the 24 next decade. As drought-year demand grows, reliability will decrease in the sense that the likelihood of a water shortage will increase from 1 in 40 to 1 in 2. That is, the reliability level would fall from 97.5% to 50%, because enough water would be extractable in only half the years. One of the standard jobs of water managers is to ensure that this doesn’t happen. But how they satisfy new demand may affect reliability. Suppose they want to maintain the current level of reliability at 97.5 per- cent. This is the first step in the planning process – choose a design relia- bility level and the benefit level associated with it. This is held constant in the analysis that follows. The amount of physical water (or water-use efficiency) required to satisfy growth in drought-year demand is the difference between future drought- F E ) and existing drought-year demand (D ). This has been year demand (D N in Figure 16, and in our example is 2,000 AF. If a supply labeled D option were to provide exactly this amount in every year, the planner N of new supply. Water from advanced treatment should procure D processes (e.g., desalinated seawater or recycled wastewater) has this characteristic if treatment facilities are designed with enough redundancy 25 to prevent downtime other than for regularly scheduled maintenance. But if the water-supply option is variable from year to year, the planner N available 39 out of 40 years, or must procure enough of it to have D reliability will decline. For example, when the chosen option is a surface- water source, the amount available in an average year must be greater N N in order to ensure D is available in a dry year. than D N that has to be purchased The amount of water supply greater than D from the new water source depends on two factors: the new source’s stan- dard deviation of annual yield and the correlation of annual yield with the existing supply. The higher the new source’s standard deviation of annual yield, the more water that needs to be procured from the new source to ensure adequate water in a low-flow year. The lower the corre- lations of annual yield between the new source and the existing source, N is the less of the new source will be required, on average, to ensure D available in a dry year. What this means is that comparing unit costs for options based on the average amount of water each option will deliver leaves out an important piece of the economic picture. For illustration purposes, suppose that advanced treatment of impaired water, a new surface-water supply, and outdoor conservation have an average unit cost of $600 per acre-foot ($/AF). Ignoring reliability impacts, there is no financial difference among these sources. A water demand projection is based on many 24 But suppose further that the new surface-water supply has a similar pat- factors, such as projected growth in population tern of wet and dry years to the old surface-water supply but is more and employment in the service area. variable. Then ensuring the 2,000 AF of new supply that will be needed in a drought year requires that the new source be sized to deliver more 25 Some indoor water conservation measures may than 2,000 AF of water each average year, just as the old source was also have this characteristic of supplying exactly capable of providing 10,000 AF on average but only 8,000 AF with the N every year if they are designed carefully. D desired level of reliability. If the new surface water source has a coeffi- cient of variance (the standard deviation over the mean) of 20%, the

60 50 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION water planner will need to procure 3,333 AF in an average year to ensure 2,000 AF in the constant-reliability-benefit design year (3,333 - (2 x 0.2 x 3,333) = 2,000). This in turn implies that each unit of water during drought will cost $1,000/AF on a constant-reliability-benefit basis 26 See Figure 17 for an illustration of the ($600/(1 - 2 x 0.2) = $1,000). average and constant-reliability benefit of surface water in this example. Figure 17 1,200 Illustration of Average and Constant-Reliability-Benefit 1,000 (Drought Year) Unit Costs 800 – Average Unit Cost – Constant-Reliability-Benefit (Drought Year) Unit Costs t ($/AF) 00 6 s o C Unit 400 200 0 ervation Advanced Treatment Outdoor urface Water S New s on C If an outdoor water-conservation measure were to save more water 27 its constant-reliability-benefit unit cost would be during dry weather, less than the assumed $600/AF. If it were perfectly counter-correlated with the current surface-water source, and had a coefficient of variation of 10%, its constant-reliability-benefit unit cost would be $500/AF = ($600/(1+2 x 0.1)). That is, ensuring 2,000 AF of water in a drought year 26 Stated differently, the utility could pay 67% more would require outdoor conservation measures sized to deliver only 1,667 per average unit of water from the advanced AF in an average year. The counter-correlation implies that during a treatment facility (1,000/600 = 1.67) compared drought where flows in the current supply source are two standard devia- to each average unit in the new surface water tions below its mean, outdoor conservation would save two standard alternative – and provide the same economic deviations above its mean, which equals 2.0 when the mean is 1.667 and benefit at the same cost to customers. Note that the standard deviation is 0.1667 (10% of the mean). the premium is not in total, but per unit. The smaller advanced treatment facility is just as Figure 17 summarizes the average unit costs and constant-reliability-ben- good as the larger surface water facility at efit (drought year) unit costs under these assumptions. Accounting for reliably providing 2,000 AF, so a per unit variance and correlation among water sources – as is done for securities premium is justified. when managing a portfolio of financial assets – is clearly important. Water-supply planners who do not consider these factors might think For example, laser leveling, drip or micro-spray 27 options are similar in cost when they are in fact quite different once relia- irrigation, scheduling improvements, evapo- bility benefits of the options are equalized. Worse yet, an apparently inex- transpiration (ET) controllers, and adjustments in pensive source might turn out to be very expensive on a constant-relia- sprinkler heads to improve distribution uniformity bility-benefit basis, or an apparently expensive source might turn out to reduce the percent of applied water that have the lowest cost per acre-feet when reliability is considered. percolates or evaporates. Since applied water must go up during drought, these measures will Local Control Over Supplies save more water during drought than during average or wet weather. Auto-rain shut-off In many regions of the world, water resources are increasingly transferred devices, by contrast, save more water when it from one place to another, especially from rural to urban communities, rains than when it is dry.

61 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 51 from water-rich to water-poor regions, and toward economic interests willing and able to pay for water. These transfers raise two separate issues of local control of resources. The first concern is the worry of rural – often agricultural – areas that distant urban or economic powers will steal local resources. The classic example is the efforts of the City of Los Angeles in the early part of the 20th century to obtain water from farming communities hundreds of miles away, which has colored California water politics ever since (Reisner 1986). Las Vegas is currently contemplating major investments in water systems capable of taking groundwater from distant towns and farms in order to diversify its water-supply options and reduce depend- ence on limited supplies from the Colorado River – a move strongly opposed by some of those rural communities. Other examples can be found around the world, including in India and China. The second con- cern is that urban centers will become dependent on distant resources and increase their vulnerability to supply disruptions over which they have limited control. Desalination may offer a solution to both of these political problems by providing a reliable, high-quality source of water under direct local con- trol, reducing the need for imported water at the same time that it reduces the vulnerability to outside disruptions. To the extent that local control measurably reduces the probability of supply disruption, local control would improve reliability and can be considered as a factor in the method for estimating constant-reliability-benefit unit costs presented above. That is, the standard deviation of yield from a water source is not purely hydrologic but can also include evaluation of political, environ- mental, legal, and other risk factors. Ironically, this may set up a situation where rural agricultural interests support and even promote urban desali- nation that they will not have to pay for, in order to reduce political pres- sure to transfer cheaper water from the agricultural sector to the cities. Water Quality One of the advantages of desalination is the potential to produce high- quality water. Desalination facilities are designed to remove numerous impurities and produce water that may be a large improvement over existing water sources. However, the desalination process can also run the risk of introducing harmful chemicals and metals into the water it pro- duces or leaching them out of the distribution system on the way to users. Quality Advantages Customers are often willing to pay more for better-quality water, espe- Water conservation may help, harm, or be neutral 28 cially when hardness in the source water creates water softening expenses with respect to blended water quality. Unlike for the customer or when taste is noticeably affected by high TDS. physical water supplies, conserved water does However, the willingness of customers to pay for higher-quality water is not have a water quality “of its own.” Conserved not directly relevant to the value of higher-quality water from desalina- water will help to improve blended water quality tion, just as willingness to pay for higher reliability was not directly rele- when conservation allows less water from a poor vant to the reliability value of desalination. Planners need to compare quality source to be used, but in contrast it will supply options (including conservation) on a “constant-water-quality” worsen blended water quality if it leads to less 28 This involves choosing a quality standard based on community basis. water from a high-quality source.

62 52 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION standards and willingness to pay for quality. It also involves finding the lowest-cost option or combination of options for attaining that standard. Again, a simplified example may be useful. Assume the following: • A community needs 100 AFY of water that satisfies the secondary drinking water standard of 500 ppm of TDS 99.5% of the time. The 99.5% requirement can be thought of as an internal water-quality standard. • The purchased quantities will be delivered exactly every year. That is, water quantity reliability is not a problem. There are three sources of water available. The planner can purchase • any two of them in any quantities desired that add up to 100 AFY. • Source One has the lowest cost but unfortunately has average annual TDS content of 650 ppm. Its annual TDS is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 65 ppm (10% of its average). Colorado River water delivered to Southern California has approximately these charac- 29 Water from Source One costs $100/AF. teristics (Redlinger 2005). • Source Two is a higher-cost surface water and has normally distributed TDS with a mean of 350 ppm and standard deviation of 70 ppm (20% of its average). Water from Source Two costs $500/AF. • Source Three is from seawater desalination and also has normally dis- tributed TDS but with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 5 ppm (10% of its average). Water from Source Three costs $800/AF. • The water quality of the three sources is completely uncorrelated. Under these assumptions, there are two possible lowest-cost portfolios with TDS of 500 ppm or lower 99.5% of the time. Both involve using as much of the low cost Source One as possible. Source Two is less expen- sive than Source Three but also has higher TDS. So it is possible that paying for the higher-quality Source Three will allow more of the lowest- quality Source One to be used, reducing the average cost of suitable water. Table 6 shows the mix of sources and the unit cost of produced water with TDS 500 at least 99.5% of the time. The relevant math is pre- sented in Appendix D. Table 6 Average Source Two or Three Source One Portfolio Portfolios Providing 500 ppm TDS 99.5% Unit Cost of Years 95 AFY of Source Two 5 AFY Sources One and Two $484/AF 49 AFY of Source Three $443/AF Sources One and Three 51 AFY Table 6 shows that only 5% from Source One may be used when Source Two is the only other water available for blending, under the assumptions made. In contrast, 51% of blended water can come from Source One 29 Water-quality data for the Colorado River is when Source Three is available for blending. Although Source Three is provided in Appendix E, available online at 60% more expensive per unit than Source Two ($800/$500 = 1.6), its . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination high quality and low variance in quality make it more than worth the

63 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 53 premium. In fact, in this example, one could pay about 75% more for it 3 (i.e., about $2.69/kgal or $0.71/m ) and have an average unit cost for blended water that is equal to the average unit cost of water obtained by blending Sources One and Two. As this example demonstrates, when there is no water-quality problem or standard that must be met, there is no need for the water-quality benefits of desalination and, hence, no appropriate economic premium. When there is such a standard or need, and only a single high-quality, high-cost water source, then the water agency must use the minimum of the higher- quality source required to meet the standard. When an agency has mul- tiple water sources available, the appropriate mix of sources depends on the relative quality and costs, as described in the method and example above. Health Concerns While the quality of desalinated water is typically very high, a number of potential health concerns have been identified. End-use water quality of While the quality of desalinated water is a function of source water quality, treatment processes, and distribution of the product water. Harmful contaminants desalinated water is can be introduced at each of these stages. typically very high, a The water fed into a desalination system may introduce biological and number of potential chemical contaminants that are hazardous to human health. Biological health concerns have contaminants include viruses, protozoa, and bacteria. Chemical contami- nants include regulated and unregulated chemicals, xenobiotics (including been identified. endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products), and algal toxins (MCHD 2003). These contaminants are of particular concern if they are not removed during subsequent treatment processes. Boron, for example, is found in very low levels in average U.S. drinking water supplies (a survey of 100 U.S. drinking water supplies showed a median boron concentration of 0.03 milligrams per liter (mg/l)) (Mastromatteo and Sullivan 1994), but much higher levels are normally found in seawater (typical concentrations are between 4 and 7 mg/l). Boron is known to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity in ani- mals and irritation of the digestive tract. It also accumulates in plants, raising concern about high boron levels in water used for irrigation or landscaping (ATSDR 1995). RO membranes can remove between 50% and 70% of this element but pass the rest, where it is then concentrated in the product water. Concern has been expressed that boron may be found in desalinated water at levels greater than the World Health Organization’s provisional guideline of 0.5 mg/l and the California Action Level of 1 mg/l (WHO 2003, CDHS 2005). Some membranes and processes are being developed to improve boron removal (Toray 2005). For example, the Long Beach Water Department adjusts the sodium hydroxide levels between stages of the two-stage NF process, which changes the chemistry of boron (by changing the size and charge) and improves boron removal (Cheng 2006). Other methods for addressing boron include blending the desalinated product water with water con- taining low boron levels, but all of these methods will entail greater expense. Arsenic, small petroleum molecules, and some microorganisms unique to seawater are also capable of passing though RO membranes and reaching the product water (Cotruvo 2005).

64 54 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Treatment may also introduce new contaminants or remove essential min- erals. For example, combining disinfection agents, such as chlorine and chloramine, with waters containing high bromide levels can produce brominated organic byproducts (Weinberg et al. 2002), which “have greater carcinogenic or toxic potential than many chlorinated byprod- ucts” (Cotruvo 2005). In addition, essential minerals, such as magnesium and calcium, are often stripped from the product water. When ingested, water with a low mineral content can leach essential nutrients from the human body. Similar leaching can occur within a distribution system, introducing contaminants into the product water (as noted below). Post- treatment can replace some of these minerals, and the World Health Organization suggests that remineralization with calcium and magnesium can have positive health effects, such as is the case with fluoridation (WHO 2004). Assuring public health Assuring public health and environmental protection requires monitoring and environmental and appropriate regulation of all desalination facilities. Cotruvo (2005) notes, “monitoring of source water, process performance, finished water, protection requires and distributed water must be rigorous to assure consistent quality at the monitoring and customer’s tap. Moreover, additional water quality or process guidelines specific to desalination are needed to assure water quality, safety, and appropriate regulation environmental protection.” Regulatory oversight by public utility com- of all desalination missions or health departments or new legislation can provide this much- needed protection. facilities. The California legislature recently sought to address some of the potential health implications of desalination. California Assembly Bill 1168 would have required the Department of Health Services “to identify potential contaminants and sources of contamination and ensure the safety and effectiveness of treatment processes” before issuing a water system oper- ating permit for groundwater or ocean water desalination projects. This bill passed the Assembly and Senate but was vetoed by the governor in October 2005. Water Distribution System Reverse osmosis and distillation alter the chemical content of the product water. The RO process lowers both the calcium and carbonate concentra- tions, which produces acidic product water that can corrode the distribu- tion system. When this happens, iron and other toxic metals, such as copper, lead, cadmium, zinc, and nickel, can be leached from the distribu- tion system. System corrosion has an economic impact. “The losses resulting from the reduction of the useful life of the system, from repair and maintenance, and from wasted water and chemicals are but some sides of the economic aspects of corrosion in the water distribution system. These costs are borne directly or indirectly by the municipality” (Shams El Din 1986). To minimize adverse effects on the distribution system, desalinated water must undergo post-treatment. The risk of corrosion is reduced by reintro- ducing calcium carbonate in the form of lime or limestone, which neutral- izes acidity and forms a non-porous film along the distribution system. Aeration increases the oxygen content of the water and raises the pH.

65 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 55 Chlorination may then be required to disinfect the water and control bio- logical growth in the distribution system. While balancing the chemical content of the product water is possible, experience in the Middle East suggests that careful monitoring and proper management are required. In a desalination plant in Abu Dhabi, for example, Shams El Din (1986) notes that “some difficulty is experi- enced in producing water with uniform characteristics, and daily analysis shows a range of variation in the composition of the product,” leading to product water that is extremely aggressive in attacking pipes. The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) recommends that desalination proposals “[e]valuate the effects of desalinated water on existing water supply distribution systems” (CDWR 2003). This indicates that the overall effects on California water distribution systems are not yet known. Careful monitoring and management are necessary to ensure that the distribution system is not adversely affected. Problems of moni- toring and reporting may be further complicated when a private company operates the desalination plant and distributes it to a public water-supply system. Energy Intensity As discussed above, desalinated seawater has reliability and water-quality advantages that must be weighed against its higher cost and potential environmental impacts. However, another potential disadvantage of sea- water desalination should be accounted for when considering whether or how to implement seawater desalination projects. Because desalinated seawater is an energy-intensive water source (Figure 18), relying on it cre- ates or increases the water supplier’s exposure to energy price variability and energy price increases over time. Figure 18 4,500 Energy Intensity of Water Sources in 4,000 San Diego County 3,500 Source: Wolff et al. 2004 3,000 2,500 2,000 ity (Equivalent kWh/AF) s 1,500 1,000 Energy Inten 500 0 s ter laimed Project h Water eawater alination alination te Wa s S Aqueduct s s s tate Water Rec Water Bag roundwater S De De Wa G olorado River Ocean-Towed C Bracki

66 56 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Figure 18 shows that even in San Diego – the farthest point of delivery in the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct systems – seawater 30 desalination requires more energy than any other source of supply. Because energy embedded in imported water supplies is at a maximum in San Diego, seawater desalination is even more energy-intensive in relation to other options elsewhere in California. Table 7 Portfolios Providing 500 ppm TDS 99.5% Exposure to Energy Price Variability of Years Water suppliers are concerned not just about variability in water yield Notes: from various sources, but in the variability of important production costs. 1) Data are annual averages from 1971 Variability in cost can force the utility to raise rates to cover unexpected to 2002. costs. This can be especially embarrassing in response to drought, when 2) Price Index Base Year is 2002-2004 = 100. revenues are already down due to reduced water sales. Since desalination plants will likely be operated at peak output during drought, unexpect- 30 The units in Figure 18 are in equivalent kilowatt- edly high costs could amplify revenue instability already experienced by hours per acre-foot. This is the sum of actual water suppliers. kilowatt-hours of electricity used to pump water plus the amount of electricity that would be We investigated this potential problem by examining historical energy 31 produced by a central power plant using other Our findings are presented in Table 7. prices and rainfall in California. 32 types of fuel to transport water (e.g., direct drive The raw data are presented in Appendix F. diesel pumps). 31 Time-series data for statewide precipitation by Coefficient Standard Average Data Series Correlation w/ water year were available from the California of Variance Precipitation Deviation Department of Water Resources (CDWR 2006, Roos 2006). Time-series data for retail electricity N/A 35.2% 8.5 inches Mean Statewide 24.1 inches and piped gas price levels in the San Francisco Precipitation and Los Angeles metropolitan areas were LA Metropolitan Natural 0.08 83.3 17.7% 14.8 available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Gas Price Index (BLS 2006). These time series overlapped from 1972 through 2002. Precipitation data were 102.9 -0.27 11.8 11.5% LA Metropolitan available by September through August “water Electricity Price Index years.” That is, precipitation data labeled 1971 79.3 18.3 23.1% -0.04 SF Metropolitan Natural represents four months of 1971 and eight Gas Price Index months of 1972. We adjusted the retail energy price level data to remove the upward trend of 15.9 14.8% -0.32 SF Metropolitan 107 inflation and calculated the mean, standard Electricity Price Index deviation, and coefficient of variance (standard deviation over the mean) for each series. We also calculated the coefficient of correlation between energy and precipitation data. The coefficients of variance in the table reveal – at least on a preliminary basis – that energy price volatility in California over three decades is sig- 32 Appendix F is available online at nificant, not just a recent event. For example, a coefficient of variance of . www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination 14.8% implies that energy prices will be at least 14.8% higher or lower 33 Those who implement than the average about one year out of three. The range from one standard deviation below to 33 desalination projects either will need to be prepared for costs that may one standard deviation above the mean of a vary significantly from year to year (e.g., if their water purchase contract normal distribution includes about 2/3 of the from a private desalination plant developer has an energy cost pass- occurrences of the random variable (in this case, through clause) or will need to pay an energy or project developer to gas prices will fall within the average price hedge against this uncertainty for them (e.g., through a long-term energy +/-14.8% two out of three years). This further purchase contract or through on-site energy production from sources implies the variable (gas prices) will be greater with less variability such as solar electric). In any case, energy price than one standard deviation above or below the uncertainty creates costs that are ultimately paid by water users but mean about 1/3 of the time. which might be neglected in an estimate of project cost.

67 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 57 What this means is that in regions like California, building a desalination plant may decrease a water utility’s exposure to reliability risks, such as from droughts, at the added expense of an increase in exposure to energy In California, building price risk. As with any risk, there are hedging options available, but this a desalination plant may increase the overall cost. Very few of the current California desalina- tion proposals have adequately or publicly addressed these factors. may decrease a water utility’s exposure to The negative correlation coefficients between electricity and precipitation shown in the table suggest that electricity costs more, hence desalinated reliability risks at the 34 This makes logical water will cost more, when less precipitation occurs. added expense of an sense given that inexpensive hydropower is an important source of elec- tricity in California. By contrast, there is next to no correlation between increase in exposure natural gas prices and precipitation, which suggests that at least histori- to energy price risk. cally, shortages of hydroelectricity were either compensated for with power sources other than natural gas (e.g., coal from the western area grid), or that natural gas prices for power plants were isolated from vari- ation in retail natural gas prices via long-term contracts. These negative correlations imply another concern for desalination project developers. If the desalination plant were operated more in dry years than in wet years, the average cost per unit of water produced (e.g., $/kgal) will be higher than the estimated cost based on average electric price. This is because more units of electricity will be purchased at prices higher than average (during drought) than at prices lower than average (during wet years). One must be careful to compare the expected profile of water production against the projected profile of energy cost in order to get an accurate estimate of cost. Failing to do so – unless the plant will produce the same amount of water regardless of surface water availability – could understate costs in California because, unlike many other parts of the world, California’s electricity prices are more closely correlated with the availability of surface water. Exposure to Energy Price Increases The energy intensity of water from seawater desalination plants will likely increase the relative cost of water from the plant over time. If energy prices rise over time, in nominal dollars, then the cost of produced water from desalination will likely increase more than the cost of pro- duced water from less energy-intensive water sources. This is because 34 A correlation value of 1 equals a perfectly positive capital amortization payments do not rise steadily over time. If a fixed- correlation. A correlation value of -1 equals a rate loan is involved, they will be constant over time. If a variable-rate perfectly negative correlation. A correlation value loan is involved, they will rise when interest rates rise and fall when of 0 equals no measurable correlation. In our interest rates fall. But over several decades or more, there will be no measurements, the correlation is weak. It might upward trend in payments for capital. not be statistically significant if a rigorous analysis of energy prices versus precipitation, or By contrast, energy prices are rising over time. Even if that increase is less more generally, water availability, were than the rate of inflation, they are rising. For example, consider a situa- performed. Such analysis is beyond the scope of tion where energy is the only variable cost and all other costs are amor- this report. The analysis done in this report is tized at a fixed interest rate. Suppose energy costs rise at 1% per year. A intended to make the questions and issues desalination facility with 50% variable and 50% fixed costs will have surrounding energy use and desalination projects higher costs over time than a surface-water facility with 33% variable concrete, but the particular numbers provided costs and 67% fixed costs. The relative cost of desalination will be rising, need to be developed more rigorously and and the water supplier will have underestimated the cost of desalination specifically for individual projects. relative to other options if they have compared costs for the options

68 58 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION without accounting for energy price increases. Figures 19 and 20 show the cost time trends for the relative cost of potable water from a typical ocean desalination, wastewater recycling, and gravity surface water source, in Northern and Southern California, using the electricity price time series described above, from 1971 through 2005. By relative cost, we mean that the cost of each option has been normalized to “1” in the first year of the time series. This does not mean that the three options have equal costs in that year. The normalization simply makes the comparison of options over time more convenient. The figures show that the upward trend in cost, and the year-to-year volatility in cost, varies significantly by source as a function of energy intensity. Potable water produced by seawater desalination rises in cost more rap- idly than other sources, and has greater year-to-year variability, because less of its cost is due to fixed capital expenses. 3 Figure 19 Relative Cost of Potable Water from ) s a Typical Ocean Desalination, 2.5 Wastewater Recycling, and Gravity eawater S alinated s De Surface Water Source in the 2 Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Recycled Water 1.5 S G ravity urface Water t Index in LA (Nominal Dollar 1 s o C 0.5 Relative 0 9 9 85 1 1 99 75 1 9 0 1 99 5 2000 2005 80 1 3 Figure 20 ) Relative Cost of Potable Water from s 2.5 a Typical Ocean Desalination, Wastewater Recycling, and Gravity S alinated s De eawater Surface Water Source in the 2 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area F (Nominal Dollar S 1.5 Recycled Water t Index in 1 s o ravity urface Water S G C 0.5 Relative 0 9 75 1 9 1 5 2000 2005 99 85 1 99 9 80 1 0 1

69 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 59 Environmental Impacts Desalination, like any other major industrial process, has environmental impacts that must be understood and mitigated. These include effects Each desalination associated with the construction of the plant and, especially, its long-term facility must be operation, including the effects of withdrawing large volumes of brackish water from an aquifer or seawater from the ocean and discharging large individually evaluated volumes of highly concentrated brine. Indirect impacts associated with in the context of the substantial use of energy must also be considered. Below we discuss a number of the most important environmental impacts of desalination, location, plant design, although this discussion is not meant to be exhaustive. Each desalination and local environ- facility must be individually evaluated in the context of location, plant design, and local environmental conditions. In addition, we briefly mental conditions. describe some of the design and operational considerations that can reduce some of the environmental impacts associated with desalination. Impacts of Water Intakes: Impingement and Entrainment Intake water design and operation have environmental and ecological implications. As described above, coastal plants typically take in large volumes of seawater during operation. In a recent report on power plant cooling-water intake structures, the California Energy Commission notes that “seawater ... is not just water. It is habitat and contains an entire ecosystem of phytoplankton, fishes, and invertebrates” (York and Foster 2005). Large marine organisms, such as adult fish, invertebrates, birds, and even mammals, are killed on the intake screen (impingement); organ- isms small enough to pass through the intake screens, such as plankton, eggs, larvae, and some fish, are killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment). The impinged and entrained organisms are then disposed of in the marine environment. Decomposition of these organisms can reduce the oxygen content of the water near the discharge point, creating additional stress on the marine environment. Impingement and entrainment introduce a new source of mortality to the marine environment, with potentially broad implications for local fish and invertebrate populations. More specifically, impingement and entrain- ment “may adversely affect recruitment of juvenile fish and invertebrates to parent or resident populations or may reduce breeding stocks of eco- nomically valuable fishes below their compensation point resulting in reduced production and yield” (Brining et al. 1981). The magnitude and intensity of these effects depend upon a number of factors, including the percent mortality of the vulnerable species, the mortality rate of the organism relative to the natural mortality rate, and the standing stock in the area of interest (Edinger and Kolluru 2000). The effects of impingement and entrainment are species- and site-specific, and only limited research on the impacts of desalination facilities on the marine environment has been done. A recent overview of desalination seawater intakes, however, asserts that “[e]nvironmental impacts associ- ated with concentrate discharge have historically been considered the greatest single ecological impediment when siting a seawater desalination facility. However, recent analyses have noted that marine life impinge- ment and entrainment associated with intake designs were greater, harder- to-quantify concerns and may represent the most significant direct adverse 2004). desalination” (Pankratz environmental impact of seawater

70 60 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION Some relevant work has been done on the impacts of power plants that use OTC systems. An analysis of coastal and estuarine power plants in California suggests that impingement and entrainment associated with OTC systems have significant environmental impacts: “... impingement and entrainment impacts equal the loss of biological productivity of thou- sands of acres of habitat” (York and Foster 2005). It is important to note that power plant intake structures typically operate at a significantly higher capacity than many of the proposed desalination plants in California, and as a result, their environmental impact is substantially greater. The power plant intake studies, however, suggest that open water intakes may have significant impacts on the environment and that mitiga- tion is required. A number of technological and operational measures as well as design considerations can reduce impingement and entrainment associated with open water intake systems. Technological measures generally fall into four categories: physical barriers, collections systems, diversion systems, and behavioral barriers (Taft et al. 2003) and include passive screens, velocity caps, ristroph screens, and variable speed pumps. The operation of pumps can be modified to reduce impacts, by limiting pumping during critical periods. Surface intake pipes can be located outside of areas of high biological productivity. Subsurface intake wells, which include infiltration galleries and horizontal and vertical beach wells, provide an alternative to open ocean intake sys- tems and are being considered for 7 of the 21 proposed plants in Subsurface intake wells California. Many feel that subsurface intake wells will prove to be an use sand as a natural environmentally superior option. Subsurface intake wells use sand as a natural filter and can reduce or eliminate impingement and entrainment filter and can reduce or of marine organisms and reduce chemical use during pretreatment. These eliminate impingement wells, however, have some limitations; they require a gravelly or sandy substrate and appear to be limited to intake volumes of 0.1 to 1.5 MGD and entrainment of 3 /d) of water per well (Pankratz 2004, Filtration and (380 to 5,700 m marine organisms and Separation 2005a). They can also damage freshwater aquifers and the beach environment. The CCC recommends that “[b]each wells should reduce chemical use only be used in areas where the impact on aquifers has been studied and during pretreatment. saltwater intrusion of freshwater aquifers will not occur. Infiltration gal- leries are constructed by digging into sand on the beach, which could result in the disturbance of sand dunes” (CCC 1993). Ultimately, the individual volumes, designs, locations, and local ocean conditions will determine the impacts of desalination impingement and entrainment. As a result, careful siting, design, and monitoring are required. Mitigation may also be required where impacts are expected or observed. Brine Composition and Discharge Adequate and safe disposal of the concentrated brine produced by the plant presents a significant environmental challenge. Brine salinity depends on the salinity of the feedwater, the desalination method, and the recovery rate of the plant. Typical brines contain twice as much salt as the feedwater and have a higher density. In addition to high salt levels, brine from seawater desalination facilities can contain concentrations of constituents typically found in seawater, such as manganese, lead, and iodine, as well as chemicals introduced via urban and agricultural runoff,

71 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 61 such as nitrates (Talavera and Ruiz 2001), and impinged and entrained marine organisms killed during the desalination process, as noted above. Composition Chemicals used throughout the desalination process may also be dis- charged with the brine. The majority of these chemicals are applied during pretreatment to prevent membrane fouling (Amalfitano and Lam 2005). For example, chlorine and other biocides are applied continuously to prevent organisms from growing on the plant’s interior, and sodium bisulfite is then often added to eliminate the chlorine, which can damage membranes. Anti-scalants, such as polyacrylic or sulfuric acid, are also added to prevent salt deposits from forming on piping. Coagulants, such as ferric chloride and polymers, are added to the feedwater to bind parti- cles together. The feedwater, with all of the added chemicals, then passes through a filter, which collects the particulate matter. The RO membranes reject the chemicals used during the desalination process into the brine. The particulate matter on the filter is also discharged with the brine or collected and sent to a landfill. In addition to using chemicals for pretreatment, chemicals are required to clean and store the RO membranes. Industrial soaps and dilute alkaline and acid aqueous solutions are commonly used to clean the membranes every three to six months. The membranes are then rinsed with product water. The first rinse, which contains a majority of the cleaning solution, is typically neutralized and disposed of in local treatment systems. Subsequent rinses, however, are often discharged into the brine. Frequent cleaning and replacement of the membranes due to excess membrane fouling may lead to discharges in violation of sanitary system discharge permits. This problem has occurred in Tampa Bay, as noted in Box 3 and Appendix C. Brine also contains heavy metals introduced during the desalination process. Corrosion of the desalination equipment leaches a number of heavy metals, including copper, lead, and iron, into the waste stream. In an early study of a desalination plant in Florida, Chesher (1975) found elevated copper and nickel levels in the water column and in sediments near the brine discharge point. Copper levels were particularly high during unstable operating periods and immediately following mainte- nance, although engineering changes made at the plant permanently reduced copper levels. Perhaps the best way to reduce the effects of brine disposal is to reduce the volume of brine that must be discharged and minimize the adverse chemicals found in the brines. Both man-made filters and natural filtra- tion processes can reduce the amount of chemicals applied during the pre- treatment process. Ultrafiltration, for example, can replace coagulants, effectively removing silt and organic matter from feedwater (Dudek and Associates 2005). Ultrafiltration also removes some of the guesswork involved in balancing the pretreatment chemicals, as pretreatment “must be continuously optimized to deal with influent characteristics” (Amalfintano and Lam 2005). These filters, however, are backwashed periodically to remove sludge buildup and cleaned with the same solution used on RO membranes. Backwash can be disposed of with the waste brine or dewatered and disposed of on land. Additionally, subsurface intake wells, which use sand as a natural filter, reduce chemical usage

72 62 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION during pretreatment by reducing the biological organisms that cause bio- fouling. Discharge A number of brine disposal options are available. For desalination plants located on the coast, disposal methods include discharge to evaporation ponds, the ocean, confined aquifers, or saline rivers that flow into an estuary. Options for inland disposal of brines and concentrates include deep-well injection, pond evaporation, solar energy ponds, shallow aquifer storage for future use, and disposal to a saline sink via pipeline or injection to a saline aquifer (NAS 2004). Each disposal method, however, has a unique set of advantages and dis- advantages. Large land requirements make evaporation ponds uneconom- ical for many developed or urban areas. Sites along the California coast, for example, tend to have high land values, and coastal development for industrial processes is discouraged. Injection of brine into confined groundwater aquifers is technically feasible, but it is both expensive and hard to ensure that other local groundwater resources remain uncontami- nated. Unless comprehensive and competent groundwater surveys are done, there is a risk of unconfined brine plumes appearing in freshwater wells. Direct discharges into estuaries and the ocean disrupt natural salinity balances and cause environmental damage of sensitive marshes or fisheries. All of these methods add to the cost of the process, and some of them are not yet technically or commercially available. As noted by the Ocean discharge is 2003 U.S. Desalination Roadmap, “finding environmentally-sensitive dis- the most common posal options for this concentrate that do not jeopardize the sustainability of water sources is difficult, and, thus, next-generation desalination plants and least expensive will have to be designed to minimize the production of these concen- disposal method for trates, or find useful applications for them” (USBR and SNL 2003). coastal desalination Ocean discharge is the most common and least expensive disposal plants, although this method for coastal desalination plants (Del Bene et al. 1994), although this approach can have significant impacts on the marine environment. approach can have Brine discharged into the ocean can be pure, mixed with wastewater significant impacts 35 effluent, or combined with cooling water from a co-located power plant. Ocean discharge assumes that dilution of brine with much larger volumes on the marine of ocean water will reduce toxicity and ecological impacts. The notion environment. that diluting brine with cooling water reduces the toxicity of the brine is based on the old adage, “Dilution is the solution to pollution.” While this may be true for some brine components, such as salt, it does not apply to others. The toxicity of persistent toxic elements, including some subject to bioaccumulation, such as heavy metals, is not effectively minimized by dilution. In addition, little is known about the synergistic effects of mixing brine with either wastewater effluent or cooling water from power plants. Because brine is typically twice as saline as the feedwater, it has a higher density than the receiving water and exhibits a distinct physical behavior. As a general rule, brine follows a downward trajectory after release. If 35 Mixing brine with waste water may contaminate brine is released from an outfall along the seafloor, as is typical, it tends what is increasingly being considered a new to sink and slowly spread along the ocean floor. Mixing along the ocean source of water. For this reason, municipal waste floor is much slower than at the surface, thus inhibiting dilution and water should not be used for brine dilution.

73 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 63 increasing the risk of ecological damage (Chesher 1975). Other factors are also important, however. Brine behavior varies according to local con- ditions (i.e., bottom topography, current velocity, and wave action) and discharge characteristics (i.e., concentration, quantity, and temperature) (Del Bene et al. 1994, Einav and Lokiec 2003). The site specificity of brine behavior suggests that plume models optimized to handle negatively buoyant discharges should be employed to determine the potential marine impacts of all proposed desalination plants. The chemical The chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine discharge pose a constituents and threat to marine organisms. Brine can kill organisms on short timescales physical behavior and may also cause more subtle changes in the community assemblage over longer time periods: “Heat, trace metals, brine, and other toxicants of brine discharge may result in acute mortality to organisms in the receiving waterbody. pose a threat to Subtle changes in distribution and abundance patterns and sublethal changes in the physiological, behavioral, and/or reproductive condition of marine organisms. resident organisms may occur” (Brining et al. 1981). Bioaccumulation of toxicants and synergistic effects are also possible. Certain habitat types, organisms, and organismal life stages are at greater risk than others. Along California’s coast, rocky habitat and kelp beds are particularly rich, sensitive ecosystems, and effort should be made to avoid these areas. Benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the discharge pipe are at the greatest risk from the effects of brine discharge. These can include crabs, clams, shrimp, halibut, and ling cod. Some have limited mobility and are unable to move in response to altered conditions. Many benthic organisms are important ecologically because they link primary producers, such as phytoplankton, with larger consumers (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Additionally, juveniles and larvae may also be at greater risk (Cal Am and RBF Consulting 2005). In 1979, Winters et al. noted the risks that the chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine may pose a threat to the marine environment and stressed the need for adequate monitoring: It is impossible to determine the extent of ecological changes brought about by some human activity (e.g., desalination) without totally studying the system involved. Ideally such studies should involve a thorough investigation of both the physical and biological compo- nents of the environment. These studies should be done over a long period of time. Baseline data should actually be gathered at the site prior to construction for subsequent comparative uses. This will allow for a thorough understanding of the area in its ‘natural’ state. Once the plant is in operation monitoring should be continued on a regular basis for a period of at least one year but preferably for two or three years. More than 25 years later, however, only a few studies have performed a comprehensive analysis of the effects of brine discharge on the marine environment, particularly on the West Coast of the United States, as noted in Cal Am and RBF Consulting (2005); the majority of studies con- ducted thus far focus on a limited number of species over a short time period with no baseline data.

74 64 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION More comprehensive studies are needed to adequately identify and miti- gate the impacts of brine discharge. A study conducted by Chesher on the biological impacts of a multi-stage flash desalination plant in Key West, Florida in 1975 serves as a good model but is in serious need of updating. Chesher’s thorough analysis included a chemical and physical analysis of the discharge, a historical analysis of sediments to determine the concen- tration of heavy metals and the abundance of certain fauna over time, and in situ and laboratory biological assessments of a number of organ- isms. Chesher found that “[a]ll experiments showed the effluent had a pronounced impact on the biological system within Safe Harbor. Even the organisms which were more abundant at Safe Harbor stations than at control stations were adversely affected in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.” Although impacts are site-specific, Chesher’s study suggests that further research and monitoring are necessary and that mitigation may be required. In their 1993 report on desalination, the CCC also cites a lack of infor- mation about the marine impacts of desalination – a problem that has yet to be resolved. The CCC compiled a thorough list of pre- and post-opera- tional data that should be collected to evaluate the marine impacts associ- ated with brine discharge (CCC 1993). Table 8 summarizes these data. We strongly recommend that this information be acquired for all plants proposing to locate along the California coast before permits are issued. Table 8 Pre- and Post-Operational Monitoring Required to Assess the Impacts of Pre-Operational Monitoring and Baseline Information Desalination on Marine Resources Studies of the effects of discharges from a pilot plant built where a final plant will be located Source: CCC 1993 Measurements of dispersion rates to determine how readily brine will disperse in the ocean Laboratory studies to determine the effect on particle size of mixing brine and sewage water Laboratory studies to determine the dispersion of metals Tracer studies using small quantities of nonradioactive isotopes of metals to determine the quantity of metals that end up in the ocean microlayer An inventory of marine organisms in the area of the outfall A long-term inventory of marine organisms in the microlayer Post-Operational Monitoring Secchi Disk Depth Test to measure how much light is penetrating the water column (to determine whether there may be an impact on the benthos) Measurements of impacts on habitat in the microlayer Measurements of impacts on fish in the water columns Plume trajectory evaluation of depth, temperature, salinity, and density Nontoxic dye tests to measure dilution Sampling of sediments Measurements of salinity at various offshore sampling locations

75 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 65 A number of disposal practices are available to reduce the salinity and possibly the toxicity of brine. Proper outfall siting can minimize adverse effects; for example, outfalls constructed in the open ocean, rather than in protected bays and estuaries, can improve mixing. Diffusers placed at the end of the discharge pipe promote mixing. Brine can also be diluted with effluent from a treatment plant or with water from a power plant using OTC systems, though this has drawbacks that are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the report. Caution must be exercised when combining brine with wastewater effluent. If the combined mixture is denser than seawater, it may introduce nutrients to the ocean floor, a zone that is not well mixed, with possible impacts on the benthic community. Because wastewater and power plants have variable flow, mixing must also involve careful monitoring. Additional research is needed to determine whether there are synergistic effects caused by combining desalination’s high salinity discharge with the high temperatures and dead biomass in a power plant discharge. Point-source discharges into waterways, including those from desalination plants, are subject to regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act. In California, the SWRCB and RWQCBs implement this act via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit pro- gram. SWRCB and RWQCBs issue NPDES permits according to identi- fied water-quality standards set forth in the California Ocean Plan and the basin plans for discharges into the ocean and inland waterways, respectively. RWQCBs require dischargers to establish a self-monitoring program and submit periodic reports and may require monitoring of bioaccumulation of toxicants. It is critical that standards for all brine components be established and that monitoring is adequate to address all possible marine impacts. Environmental Benefits Increased water-system reliability – whether from desalination facilities or other measures – might yield environmental benefits. The key to this pos- It is critical that sibility is that actions implemented to cover shortfalls during droughts standards for all must be operational during wet years. Doing so is cost effective. Although one could in concept construct a desalination facility and operate it only brine components be during droughts, the cost per unit water produced would typically be pro- established and that hibitively high. Even if two-thirds of the cost were variable and could be avoided by shutting the plant down in average and wet years, the monitoring is adequate remaining one-third of fixed costs, spread over the water produced in to address all possible drought years (say, 1 in 10), would create a unit cost during drought four times higher than the unit cost if the plant were run every year. Since marine impacts. these are generous assumptions and seawater desalination is already costly, we can expect new plants to produce water in most years, not just dry ones. Using desalination plants to increase system reliability will in practice also create surplus water during average and wet years. If this water is used to support growth in baseline water use, customers are paying not just for increased reliability but also to expand supply. However, it may be possible to release some surplus water to the environment after a desalination plant comes on line. That is, there is an implicit opportunity to provide more water for the environment buried in most reliability improvements. The opportunity is not easy to capture, nor is it uniform for all parts of the state. But this opportunity should be analyzed for each

76 66 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION proposed desalination project. For example, a desalination or water recy- cling facility may make it possible (or necessary once storage is full) to release water from storage facilities for critical environmental purposes during average or even dryer-than-average years. Or it may make it pos- sible to pump less groundwater or deliver less surface water. Proponents argue that a proposed desalination plant at Moss Landing has the potential to reduce withdrawals from the Carmel River. Cal Am sup- plies water from the river to users in the Monterey Peninsula. In 1995, the SWRCB found that Cal Am’s water diversions from the Carmel River exceeded their water rights and that these excess diversions were causing damage to public trust resources. With Order 95-10, the SWRCB required Cal Am to reduce water diversions from the Carmel River by 3 /d), a 70% nearly 11,000 AFY (approximately 9.6 MGD or 36,000 m reduction in withdrawals at that time, or obtain appropriative permits. Order 95-10 specifies that any new supplies must be used to offset diver- sions from the Carmel River on a one-to-one basis (SWRCB 1995). A number of new supply sources have been examined, including a dam, desalination, groundwater recharge, and reclamation. If Cal Am builds a desalination plant for the purpose of satisfying the SWRCB Order, the plant will have explicit environmental benefits. A less direct example of an ecosystem benefit involves the Marin Municipal Water District, which is proposing to build a desalination plant on the San Francisco Bay that will produce 10-15 MGD (38,000 to 3 /d) of water. According to MMWD, the desalination plant will 57,000 m render a proposed pipeline for increased diversions from the Russian and Eel Rivers unnecessary. In turn, this plant will reduce pressure on threat- Desalination project ened coho and steelhead salmon populations: “For MMWD, desalination is part of an ongoing commitment to reducing harmful diversions from proponents who claim rivers and streams” (MMWD 2006). an environmental Typically, however, the link between desalination (or other new sources) benefit from their and more water for environmental purposes is weak. Unless a water project need to rights order (as in Monterey) or potential order (as in Marin) makes water for the environment mandatory or more water taken from the envi- describe the binding ronment problematic, there is usually no explicit mechanism to link mechanism by desalination project approval with environmental water. Without a mech- anism, there is no guarantee that water will be used for ecosystem which product restoration. Desalination project proponents who claim an environmental water will become benefit from their project need to describe the binding mechanism by which product water will become “environmental water” rather than a “environmental water” new source of supply for future demand. rather than a new source of supply for Coastal Development and Land Use future demand. In addition to affecting the coastal environment through water intake and discharge, desalination can also affect the coast through impacts on developments, land use, and local growth, which are often controversial and contentious topics. Rapid, unplanned growth can damage local envi- ronmental resources as well as the social fabric of a community any- where. For example, building new homes and businesses without investing in infrastructure can cause overcrowded schools, traffic, and water shortages. Urban and agricultural runoff and increases in waste- water flows create water-quality problems in local rivers, streams, and/or

77 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 67 the ocean. Coastal developments are often particularly divisive. Some developments can change the nature of views, beach access, and other environmental amenities. In coastal areas throughout California, clean, potable water is sometimes considered a limiting resource and constrains development. Some of these coastal communities have already reached “build-out” – the level of development considered to be the maximum a region can sustain – and resource limitations should not be considered unusual. For example, in 2005 the City of Monterey, which is near build-out, had 31 residential, commercial, and institutional projects on its water wait list due to insuffi- cient water supply. According to the City’s General Plan, “The City does not have any water available for new residential or commercial develop- ment until an additional water supply is found. The Housing Element goals are structured to provide housing opportunities if and when water is removed as a constraint to housing development” (City of Monterey 2005). By comparison, other coastal communities that have not reached build- out are experiencing water-supply constraints. The town of Cambria, for Some desalination example, is relatively undeveloped, with a 20% build-out in 1998, and opponents worry that has a limited local supply and no connection to the state or federal water- supply system (CCC 1998). In 2001, the Cambria Community Services water provided by District Board of Directors issued a water moratorium due to concerns desalination may about their ability to provide water for fighting wildfires and continue service to residential and commercial customers. Because a new water facilitate growth. supply will remove this limitation, some desalination opponents worry that water provided by desalination may facilitate growth. In 2004, the CCC, which administers the Coastal Act, highlighted the importance of the growth-inducing impacts of desalination. “A desalina- tion facility’s most significant effect could be its potential for inducing growth,” it concluded (CCC 2004). In conjunction with their assessment, the CCC produced a series of questions to determine the potential growth-inducing impacts of a desalination plant, including: “Where will the water go?” • “Is the project meant to provide a baseline supply or is it to be used • only for emergencies or drought relief?” • “Does the project replace an existing supply of water or provide a new one?” (CCC 2004). The CCC argues that desalination plants that provide a new source of water will have a greater growth-inducing effect than those that provide water to replace an existing supply source. Similarly, water that provides a baseline supply will likely have more of a growth-inducing effect than water produced only during emergencies or droughts (CCC 2004). As noted elsewhere, however, it is unlikely that desalination plants will be built purely for emergency or drought supply because of the higher costs involved. California’s Water Desalination Task Force (CDWR 2003) also discussed the potential growth-inducing impacts of desalination but made no judg-

78 68 ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION ment about whether this is a desirable or undesirable outcome. Rather, the state recommended deferring to local communities and the appro- priate regulatory agencies to make this determination: “Growth inducing impacts of any new water supply project, including desalination, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through existing environmental review and regulatory processes.” The review processes referred to include CEQA, the California Coastal Act, and local and regional planning bodies. CEQA and the Coastal Act require evaluation of the growth-inducing impacts of a project. CEQA applies to all projects in California, whereas the Coastal Act applies to projects within an established coastal zone. Both are likely to apply to seawater desalination facilities. CEQA guide- lines explicitly require an evaluation of how additional infrastructural and service needs associated with growth may affect the environment: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster eco- nomic or population growth. ... Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. ... It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (CEQA Guidelines 15126.2 (d)). CEQA does not place a value or a limit on growth per se; rather, it con- siders growth a significant impact if it exceeds levels established in local or regional plans. Mitigation, where feasible, is required for projects that have identified significant effects. The Coastal Act takes a similar approach to growth, but it adopts more restrictive and specific language on growth restrictions along the California coast. The Coastal Act contains policies that seek to limit growth to developed areas with the appropriate infrastructure: ... these policies generally require new development be located within or next to existing developed areas able to accommodate such devel- opment ... and provide that public work facilities be sized based on the ability to maintain, enhance, or restore coastal resources, and that development allow all coastal resources to remain viable (CCC 2004). The CCC seeks to ensure that growth does not exceed limits established 36 The CCC can deny a coastal in certified Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). development permit to those desalination plants that induce growth beyond levels projected in the LCPs. 36 LCPs are developed by local governments and establish land-use plans (and measures to implement the plan) in accordance with the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act.

79 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 69 CHAPTER V OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES Privatization water sector involves transferring some or all RIVATIZATION OF THE of the assets or operation of public water systems to private compa- P nies. Desalination may be privatized in three distinct ways: the desalination plant is solely sponsored by a private company and the water produced is sold to local public agencies (such as the plants proposed by Poseidon Resources in Huntington Beach and Carlsbad); the desalination plant is sponsored by a private water company that is responsible for delivering water directly to its customers (such as the plant proposed by Cal Am in Moss Landing); or a private company partners with a public agency in a possible range of capacities to produce and deliver water (such as the plant proposed by Pajaro-Sunny Mesa and Poseidon Resources in Moss Landing). The general form of the arrangement has important implications for how it should be regulated. In California, coastal resources, including ocean waters, are part of the public commons and are protected under the public trust doctrine. Some individuals feel that privatized desalination violates the public trust doc- trine by turning a public good into a private commodity subject to market rules. Objections to desalination are particularly strong because it 37 The CCC argues that while consumption is small is a consumptive use. compared to the size of the resource, local or regional impacts may be significant: Given the risks to the program, to the state’s coastal resources, and to most of the state’s other significant environmental, health, and safety requirements meant to protect the public and the state’s resources, California should proceed cautiously in reviewing pro- posals to further privatize water and water services, particularly those involving seawater desalination (CCC 2004). 37 Desalination is consumptive because product It is important to note that other consumptive uses of coastal resources — water is consumed, unlike most water used, for such as commercial fishing and oil extraction — are allowed, and even example, for cooling, which is typically returned protected, by state law. This raises the question of how these consumptive immediately to the source. uses differ from desalination.

80 70 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES In addition, individuals and governmental agencies have expressed con- cern about the impact of international trade agreements on local, state, or Multinational compa- national regulations. The CCC, for example, states, “If the U.S. were to agree to include the provision of water as a service subject to the General nies may be able to Agreements on Trade in Services, Coastal Act policies as applied to pri- circumvent regulations, vate desalination facilities could potentially be interpreted as barriers to free trade” (CCC 2004). Under the North American Free Trade including those Agreement, the World Trade Organization Agreement, and other trade protecting the environ- agreements, multinational companies may be able to circumvent regula- tions, including those protecting the environment, by claiming that they ment, by claiming represent a trade barrier. Currently water services are not included within that they represent a trade agreements, but they may be included in the future. trade barrier. The Tampa Bay plant, discussed previously, highlights the danger of pri- vatization and should serve as an important lesson for water agencies considering partnering with a private entity. Tampa Bay Water negotiated a “design-build-operate-transfer” scheme with Poseidon Resources in 1999. When Poseidon and its project partner were unable to secure financing, Tampa Bay Water was left with the financial liability and engi- neering consequences. Tampa Bay Water was forced to purchase Tampa Bay Desal, thereby assuming full responsibility, and risk, of the desalina- tion plant. Gleick et al. (2002) provide principles and standards for water privatiza- tion that should be applied to desalination plants within California. These include the following: Governments should retain or establish public ownership or control of • water resources. Public agencies and water-service providers should monitor water • quality. • Governments should define and enforce water-quality laws. • Contracts that lay out the responsibilities of each partner are a prereq- uisite for the success of any privatization. • Clear dispute-resolution procedures should be developed prior to pri- vatization. • Independent technical assistance and contract review should be stan- dard. • Negotiations over privatization contracts should be open and trans- parent and include all affected stakeholders. Although briefly mentioned above, the issue of transparency warrants further discussion. A comparison between the desalination plant pro- posed by Long Beach Water Department and the plants proposed by Poseidon Resources reveals a starkly different picture. The LBWD, as described in other sections of this report, has performed extensive research on ways of reducing the energy requirements and environmental impacts of desalination. Their Web site provides operational data, and their employees have given numerous public talks about problems they have encountered. By contrast, Poseidon Resources has either not per-

81 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 71 formed these types of analyses, or has not made them public, but are seemingly much further along in the planning process for three large Experiences in Tampa desalination plants in California: one for which it has received city per- mits (Huntington Beach), another for which it received county permits to Bay and strong interest build a pilot plant (Moss Landing), and a third for which it completed a by the private sector in final environmental impact report (Carlsbad). Experiences in Tampa Bay, to which Poseidon Resources was a partner, and strong interest by the California highlight private sector in California highlight additional need for transparency and additional need for accountability. transparency and Desalination and Climate Change accountability. Climate change will result in significant changes to California’s water resources and coastal ocean conditions. These changes have important implications – both good and bad – for desalination. In a literature review of the effects of climate change on California’s water resources, Kiparsky and Gleick (2003) indicate that climate change will likely increase temperatures in California; increase climate variability, including storm intensity and drought frequency; raise sea level; and alter the effects of extreme events such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. Although some uncertainty remains about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change, there is general consensus that climate change will “increase the ratio of rain to snow, delay the onset of the snow season, accelerate the rate of spring snowmelt, and shorten the overall snowfall season, leading to more rapid and earlier seasonal runoff” (Kiparsky and Gleick 2003). These climatic changes will affect the supply of, and demand for, California’s water resources. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Increases in average atmospheric temperature accelerate the rate of evaporation and demand for cooling water in human settlements, thereby increasing overall water demand, while simul- taneously either increasing or decreasing water supplies (depending on whether precipitation increases or decreases and whether additional supply, if any, can be captured or simply runs off and is lost)” (IPCC 2001). In addition, rising sea levels may exacerbate seawater intrusion problems in coastal aquifers or rivers that communities depend on for water. Desalination Can Buffer the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change Some view desalination as a means of adapting to climate change and argue that desalination facilities can reduce the dependence of local water agencies on climate-sensitive sources of supply. As climate change begins to alter local hydrology, the resilience of water-supply systems may be affected. When variability of supply goes up, the risk of some extreme events increases. A reliable supply of high-quality water from desalination systems that are independent of hydrologic conditions can provide a buffer against this variability. The IPCC lists desalination plants as a supply-side adaptive measure available to meet potential increases in urban water demand associated with climate change (IPCC 2001). In a recently released water plan, the Australian government contends that desalination plants “provide a reli-

82 72 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES able supply and a good quality water and are immune from drought and climate change impacts” (NSW 2004). Climate change has also been used to justify a desalination plant in London, where a Thames Water repre- sentative said, “We've two challenges. One is population ... At the same time we’ve got climate change” (Barkham 2004). This advantage must be considered in any long-term water plan and evaluated in the context of our method for calculating constant-reliability-benefit costs, discussed above. Using the method for two different levels of variability – say “with” and “without” climate change – would allow one to quantify the additional value of desalination as an adaptive response to climate change. Desalination Facilities Will Be Vulnerable to Some Climatic Impacts Desalination facilities are likely to have some special vulnerability to cli- mate impacts. Ocean desalination plants are constructed on the coast and are particularly vulnerable to changes associated with rising sea levels, storm surges, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Intake and outfall structures are affected by sea level. Over the expected lifetime of a desalination facility, sea levels could plausibly rise by as much as a foot or more, and storm patterns are also likely to change on a comparable time scale. All of these impacts have the poten- tial to affect desalination plant design and operation and should be evalu- ated before plant construction and operation is permitted. Altering plant design to decrease vulnerability associated with climate change is rarely discussed. As the IPCC suggests, new development can be an opportunity; infrastructure can be designed to account for changes expected under an altered climate at lower cost than retrofitting existing development. Current proposals in California, however, typically make no mention of design considerations necessary to adapt to climate change and are thus missing an important opportunity. Desalination Facilities Exacerbate Climate Change with Their Large Use of Energy We recommend that The water sector consumes a tremendous amount of energy to capture, regulatory agencies treat, transport, and use water. The California Energy Commission (2005) estimates that the water sector in California used 19% and 32% consider requiring of total electricity and natural gas use, respectively, in 2001. Substantial all new desalination quantities of diesel were also consumed in California’s water sector. Because desalination is the most energy-intensive source of water, desali- facilities be nation will increase the amount of energy consumed by the water sector. carbon-neutral. The currently proposed desalination plants would increase the water- 38 related energy use by 5% over 2001 levels. The energy-intensive nature of desalination means that extensive develop- ment can contribute to greater dependence on fossil fuels, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a worsening of climate change. We recom- mend that regulatory agencies consider requiring all new desalination facilities be carbon-neutral – i.e., that the greenhouse gas emissions asso- ciated with desalination facilities be offset through energy efficiency improvements, or greenhouse gas emission reductions elsewhere. While 38 Calculation based on average energy use for this approach has not yet been adopted for other sectors in California, we 3 ). desalination of 12.9 kWh/kgal (3.4 kWh/m

83 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 73 believe it is warranted given the likely significant impacts of climate change on California’s water resources. Desalination with Alternative Energy Systems Can Reduce Climate Impacts One way to decouple the impacts of desalination facilities on climate emissions is to power them with non-fossil fuel sources. Desalination optimists have long pointed to the possibility of running desalination plants with alternative energy systems, from solar to nuclear, as a way of reducing costs or dependence on fossil fuels, and more recently, as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local contributions to climate change. While this discussion continues, there is, as yet, no economic advantage to dedicating alternative energy systems to desalination because of the high costs relative to more-traditional energy systems and the lack of a regulatory agreement to control greenhouse gases. The barriers to greater use of alternative energy are rarely technical. Solar energy has been used directly for over a century to distill brackish water and seawater. The simplest example of this type of process is the green- house solar still, in which saline water is heated and evaporated by incoming solar radiation in a basin on the floor and the water vapor con- denses on a sloping glass roof that covers the basin. When commercial plate glass began to be produced toward the end of the 19th century, solar stills were developed. One of the first successful solar systems was built in 1872 in Las Salinas, Chile, an area with very limited fresh water. This still covered 4,500 square meters, operated for 40 years, and pro- 3 /d) of fresh water (Delyannis and duced over 5,000 gallons/d (about 20 m Delyannis 1984). Variations of this type of solar still have been tested in an effort to increase efficiency, but they all share some major difficulties, including solar collection area requirements, high capital costs, and vul- nerability to weather-related damage. There are examples of desalting units that use more-advanced renewable systems to provide heat or electrical energy. Some modern desalination facilities are now run with electricity produced by wind turbines or pho- tovoltaics. An inventory of known wind- and solar-powered desalting plants (Wangnick/GWI 2005) listed around 100 units as of the end of 2004. Most of these are demonstration facilities with capacities smaller 3 3 /d), though a 0.08 MGD (300 m /d) plant using than 0.013 MGD (50 m wind energy was recently built in Cape Verde. The largest renewable energy desalination plant listed by the end of 2005 was a 0.5 MGD 3 /d) plant in Libya, which was built to use wind energy systems (2,000-m 3 /d) plant in Libya in the same location for power. A 0.3 MGD (1,000-m was designed to use photovoltaics for energy. Both of these plants went into operation in 1992 and desalted brackish water using RO. No plants run solely with nuclear power have been built, although a few desalina- tion plants supply high-quality water for nuclear facilities (Wangnick/GWI 2005). Renewable energy systems can be expensive to construct and maintain. While the principal energy input is free, the capital cost of these systems is still high. As with conventional plants, the final cost of water from these plants depends, in large part, on the cost of energy. A pilot plant combining photovoltaic electricity production with ED operated for a

84 74 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES 3 while in Gallup, New Mexico, producing around 800 gallons/d (3 m /d) 3 of fresh water at a cost of around $11.36/kgal ($3.00/m ) (Price 1999). At present, this cost is prohibitive for typical water agencies, but these systems may be more economical for remote areas where the cost of bringing in conventional energy sources is very high. If the price of fossil fuels increases or renewable energy costs drop, such systems will look more attractive. Ultimately, these energy systems must prove themselves Co-location can on the market before any such coupling can become attractive. produce substantial energy and economic Co-Locating Desalination and Energy Facilities advantages and, some Integrating desalination systems with existing power plants (or building argue, reduce joint facilities) offers a number of possible advantages, including making use of discarded thermal energy from the power plant (co-generation), environmental impacts. lower-cost electricity due to off-peak use and avoided power grid trans- mission costs, and existing intake and outfall structures to obtain sea- water and discharge brine. In addition, building on existing sites may pre- vent impacts at more pristine or controversial locations. Co-location can produce substantial energy and economic advantages and, some argue, reduce environmental impacts. Co-location is common for distillation plants built in the Persian Gulf, was proposed by Poseidon Resources for the Tampa Bay desalination plant, and is being considered for nearly half of the proposed plants in California (Filtration and Separation 2005b). While many of the distilla- tion plants installed in the Middle East and North Africa use co-genera- tion, the proposed co-located plants along the California coast share physical infrastructure like the intake and outfall pipes and are only loosely thermally coupled to the power plant. Under this arrangement, a portion of the power plant cooling water is pumped to the adjacent desalination plant, where it undergoes treatment. Warm water from the power plant requires less energy to remove salts, thereby lowering treat- ment costs. The brine is then returned to the outfall and diluted with cooling water from the power plant. Given the type of co-location proposed in California and conditions in California, it is not clear whether the economic advantages of co-location are as substantial as some claim. Since intake and outfall pipelines can be 5% to 20% of the capital cost of a new facility (Voutchkov 2005), co- location can potentially reduce costs by up to 10% (assuming capital costs are 50% of total costs). But savings from co-location may be much smaller, even trivial, depending on the setting. And as noted above, a 25% increase in energy cost would more than offset a 10% savings from Co-location may also co-location. In addition, current state and federal utility laws do not have drawbacks that allow desalination plants to obtain below-market rates from an adjacent power plant that sells power to the grid, thus lessening the economic require careful review advantages of co-location (CDWR 2003, CPUC 2005). and consideration. Co-location may also have drawbacks that require careful review and consideration. Opponents argue that co-location will prolong the life of power plants that use OTC systems. OTC is an inexpensive, simple tech- nology in which seawater is pumped through the heat exchange equip- ment once and then discharged. These cooling systems impinge and entrain marine organisms and discharge warm water laced with anti- fouling chemicals into the ocean, resulting in significant environmental

85 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 75 damage. Many of the power plants using OTC systems were constructed prior to 1980, when the marine impacts of this technology were not well understood or regulated. The California Energy Commission recently concluded that “California marine and estuarine environments are in decline and the once-through cooling systems of coastal power plants are contributing to the degradation of our coastal waters” (York and Foster 2005). The future of OTC systems remains unclear; as a result, the proposed co- located plants face a large degree of uncertainty about future operations. Federal and state agencies, whose regulations cover coastal power plants, The future of OTC including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), systems remains CCC, California Energy Commission, and State Lands Commission, rec- ognize the problems posed by OTC systems and are pushing for tighter unclear; as a result, restrictions. For example, the State Lands Commission, which administers the proposed and protects public trust lands that underlie navigable waters, adopted a resolution that calls for denying new land leases or extensions of existing co-located plants land leases for facilities associated with OTC systems after 2020 (CSLC face a large degree 2006). In addition, U.S. EPA, which regulates cooling water intake struc- tures under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, issued new regulations of uncertainty about for existing power plants in 2004 requiring them to reduce impingement future operations. by 80% to 95% and entrainment by 60% to 90 percent. The U.S. EPA provided a number of compliance options to meet the new 316(b) requirements, such as (1) reducing intake flow to levels similar to those of a closed-cycle cooling system; (2) implementing technology, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet the performance standard; and (3) demonstrating that costs exceed the benefits for that specific site. A pending lawsuit by Riverkeeper and a number of other organizations may disallow restoration and site-specific benefit-cost analysis as a means of complying with U.S. EPA’s new requirements. In California, SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs administer the U.S. EPA’s regulations on power plant cooling water discharge. Currently statewide policy regulates only the thermal discharge of power plants, whereas the RWQCBs regulate impingement and entrainment associated with cooling water intake structures. This arrangement has led to inconsistent regula- tion of impingement and entrainment effects across the state. Because of the flexibility in the U.S. EPA’s new 316(b) regulations, however, SWRCB will likely adopt a statewide strategy regulating impingement and entrain- ment. The statewide policy may be more stringent than the U.S. EPA’s regulations. Alternative technologies and operational practices may help reduce or eliminate the marine impacts associated with OTC systems, but they also reduce power plant efficiency. York and Foster (2005) concluded that flow reduction and alternative cooling technologies, such as dry cooling and recirculating cooling, are the best options available, as “other entrainment and impingement reduction methods such as changes in intake location or physical or behavioral barriers have not proved to be feasible and/or effective for most power plants.” Further, “EPA’s own fig- ures suggest that mandating recirculating cooling on all plants was highly cost-effective and would result in increased power costs to average resi- dential customers of under a dollar per month” (Clean Air Task Force 2004). Ninety-five percent of the newly licensed power plants since 1996 use alternative cooling technologies (York and Foster 2005).

86 76 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES Flow reduction and alternative cooling technologies, however, may be incompatible with co-located desalination plants. Significant reductions in water flow reduce the desalination plant’s feedwater supply and lead to more concentrated brine discharges. The desalination plant may also occupy the limited real estate needed to install alternative cooling tech- nologies. Co-location may create a regulatory loophole. It can be argued that the desalination plant will have no impacts above and beyond the OTC system and that any externalities associated with water intake, i.e., impingement and entrainment, are due to the OTC system. Once the desalination plants are built, however, they may then be used to justify continued use of OTC systems and allow the power plant operator to obtain a site-specific 316(b) exemption. Currently a power plant operator can obtain an exemption from the EPA’s 316(b) regulations if he or she can demonstrate that the cost of installing the new technology exceeds the benefits. If the forgone water supply is considered an additional cost of installing an alternative technology, the cost-benefit analysis may favor A desalination plant co-located plants. Thus, allowing desalination plants to piggyback off of power plants using OTC may prolong the life of this technology. should not be an excuse to continue A desalination plant should not be an excuse to continue using an out- dated, environmentally damaging technology. In the event that the using an outdated, SWRCB adopts strict OTC regulations, desalination plant operators must environmentally plan for the possibility that the co-located power plant will cease opera- tion or reduce water flow significantly. In Huntington Beach, Poseidon damaging technology. has negotiated a contingency plan should the Huntington Beach Generating Station cease operation. If this occurs, Poseidon would have the option to buy the intake and discharge infrastructure but must acquire its own operating permits due to a change in project description (Poseidon Resources 2005a). This contingency, however, does not address the fact that there will no longer be cooling water available for brine dilu- tion. The EIR for the Carlsbad plant, also submitted by Poseidon Resources, offers no such contingency plan (Poseidon Resources 2005b). Because of the uncertainty associated with OTC systems, the effects of desalination must be assessed independently of the power plant. The California Desalination Task Force’s recommendation suggests that regu- latory agencies are moving in this direction: “For proposed desalination facilities co-locating with power plants, analyze the impacts of the desali- nation facility operations apart from the operations of the co-located facilities. This will identify the impacts of the desalination facility opera- tions when there are reductions in cooling water quantities” (CDWR 2003). The CCC has also adopted this approach. In addition, co-location requires close coordination between two separate entities, the desalination plant and the power plant, thereby introducing additional uncertainty and cost into building and operating the desalina- tion plant. For example, Cal Am, which is proposing to build a desalina- tion plant at the Duke Energy power plant in Moss Landing, has not yet obtained a county permit to build a pilot plant because Duke Energy failed to comply with county wetland mitigation requirements. Duke Energy, which is now selling the site, was required to submit a wetland management plan and pay a $25,000 bond for removing an oil storage tank from their property. Duke Energy failed to pay the bond and must now update the bond assessment, a process that could take months to

87 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 77 complete. Cal Am officials feel that these delays are unwarranted given the limited impact of the pilot plant and warn that delays in the con- 39 structing the pilot plant will delay project completion. The uncertainty about future operations associated with OTC systems and coordination among separate entities suggests that permitting agencies and the public should apply a higher level of scrutiny to co-located desalination plants. Public Transparency It is vital that decisions about siting, building, and operating desalination facilities take account of local conditions, opinions, and sentiment. Open and early access to draft contracts, engineering designs, and management agreements are necessary for public review. Further, contracts with private companies must include provisions about who assumes the risk associated with the project if one or more of the contractors declares bankruptcy, as occurred in Tampa Bay. Adequate comment periods and appropriate public hearing schedules are also necessary to ensure that decisions about desalination plants are fair and equitable. Environmental Justice Considerations Most of the proposed desalination plants in California are likely to be located in existing industrial areas to take advantage of infrastructure and local resources. Because low-income populations tend to live in these areas, desalinations plants may have a disproportionate impact on these communities. These communities have traditionally borne significant air- quality impacts from local facilities, higher exposure to noise and indus- trial chemicals, and truck traffic. When desalination facilities are built as co-located plants, the on-site energy plant may be forced to operate at a higher capacity or continuously, thereby increasing air-quality impacts. Local communities may also suffer as a result of the desalination plant’s water-quality impacts; fish may have elevated levels of metals or other toxin, and those who rely on caught fish to supplement their protein intake may be adversely affected. Low-income and people of color may also bear disproportionate effects of increases in water rates (EJCW 2005). The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water recommends sev- eral principles on environmental justice and water use: • State legislatures should establish independent reviews of social, eco- nomic, and environmental inequities associated with current water rights and management systems. • There should be independent review of the social and economic impacts of water development on local communities. Local public review and approval should be required for any proposals • Poseidon Resources and Pajaro-Sunny Mesa are 39 to introduce private control, management, or operation of public water planning to build a desalination plant that uses systems. Duke’s seawater intake system but is located on the National Refractories site. Although portions All water and land-use projects should be planned, implemented, and • of this site have substantial soil contamination, managed with participation from impacted community members. the county approved the permit for a pilot plant without requiring cleanup (Hennessey 2006a). Actions are required to clean up pollution of water bodies upon which • This permit has been appealed to the CCC, who low-income populations rely for subsistence fishing (EJCW 2005). will make a decision in mid June.

88 78 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES Project Review Process in California Desalination plants are subject to extensive review. However, as we have alluded to above, the regulatory and oversight process for desalination is sometimes unclear and contradictory. Table 9 summarizes the major review processes that apply to desalination projects in California. As this table indicates, as many as 26 state, federal, and local agencies may be involved in the review or approval process for a desalination plant. Adequate review is essential to ensure environmental protection, public Table 9 health, and appropriate use of our resources. However, it is likely that Overview of Required Permits and uncertainty about the project review process acts as a barrier to project Approvals for Desalination Plants development. To ensure that desalination plants are built where and when in California appropriate, federal, state, and local policies should standardize and clarify these regulations. Data Sources: CCC 2004, EDAW 2005, Padre Associations, Inc. 2005 Agency Permit/Approval Regulated Activity Project Relevance Authority Federal Agencies National Marine Intake facility; Use permit (possible); National Disturbance of the seabed; Monterey Bay Sanctuaries Act discharge into sanctuary Marine Sanctuaries Act National Marine brine discharge Sanctuary Desalination plant and National Marine Endangered Species Act, Impacts to species and Federal Endangered habitat that are federally associated facilities; Section 7 Consultation Fisheries Service Species Act listed or proposed for listing brine discharge Offshore components with Intake facilities; Consultation with Army Corp of Engineers potential to affect marine brine discharge resources ————————————————————————————————————————— National Oceanic Desalination plant and For projects in national Marine Sanctuary Protection and Atmospheric National Marine Sanctuaries Act Administration marine sanctuaries associated facilities ————————————————————————————————————————— Marine Mammal Protection For harassment or Intake facility Marine Mammal Protection Act Act, Small Take Authorization unintentional take of for Incidental Harassment marine mammals Section 106 Review and Desalination plant and National Historic State Historical Impacts to historic and Preservation Act Preservation Office Compliance; National Historic pre-historic resources associated facilities Preservation Act Clean Water Act, Clean Water Act, Section 404 To place fill in navigable Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 and 33 Intake facility; pipelines U.S. Army Corps at creek crossings ———————— ——————————— waters; to place a structure of Engineers (ACOE) Rivers and Harbors Act, in navigable waters Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 Permit Section 10

89 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 79 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Project Relevance Regulated Activity Permit/Approval Agency Authority Federal Agencies (Continued) Lead agency if federal U.S. Bureau of Reclamation funding involved Consultation with Army Corp U.S. Coast Guard Intake facility Review based on potential hazard to navigation of Engineers on Section 404 Permit and Section 10 Permit Co-located facilities; U.S. Environmental State Water Resource Control Clean Water Act; Power plant cooling water Protection Agency Drinking Water Act; Safe ter product wa intake; drinking water Board has regulatory authority quality; brine discharge National Environmental Policy Act Endangered Species Act, Impacts to species and Desalination plant and 50 CFR Section 17; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Section 7 Consultation habitat that are federally associated facilities; Federal Endangered Species Act listed or proposed for listing brine discharge State Agencies Desalination plant and California Coastal Act Projects affecting coastal Coastal Development Permit; California Coastal associated facilities Commission Consistency with Coastal Zone waters; projects requiring federal permits and approvals Management Program California Department Document Review Impacts on boating safety Intake and discharge of Boating and facility Waterways Pipelines at creek Change or modify lake, Stream Alteration Agreement, California Fish and Game Code, 1602 Permit crossings stream, or river Sections 1601-1607 California Department ————————————————————————————————————————— of Fish and Game Desalination plant and California Endangered California Endangered Species Impacts to species and habitat that are listed or associated facilities; Species Act Act, Section 2081 Permit proposed for listing by intake facilities; California brine discharge Warren-Alquist Act CEQA review California Energy Modification of power plant Co-located plants over 50 MW Commission California Ocean California Ocean Protection Act Protection Council

90 80 OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES Project Relevance Regulated Activity Permit/Approval Agency Authority State Agencies (Continued) Domestic Water Amended Domestic Water Department of Desalination components Permit; Source Water Health Services Amendment Assessment and Protection Plan State Parks Desalination plant and Department of Parks Approval for facilities within associated facilities or near state parks and Recreation Regulations Department of Encroachment Permit Pipelines Activities affecting state Transportation highway right-of-ways Department of Product water distribution Approval Use of state water conveyance facilities Water Resources Plants owned and Public Utilities Act Public Utilities Regulates water services, rates, and service areas Commission operated by private entity Desalination plant and San Francisco Bay BCDC permit Placing fill materials; McAteer-Petris Act associated facilities dredging or extracting Conservation and materials; substantially Development changing the use of any Commission (BCDC) structure or area; constructing, remodeling, or repairing a structure; or subdividing property or grading land within BCDC’s jurisdiction Land Use Lease Intake facility California Public State Lands Development in tidelands Resources Code or navigable waterways Commission Intake facility; Clean Water Act, Section 401 Porter-Cologne Water Activities affecting surface State Water Quality Control Act; brine discharge water quality (review of Water Quality Certification federal permits) Resources Control Clean Water Act Board/Regional ————————————————————————————————————————— Control Boards NPDES Permit/Stormwater Brine discharge Brine discharge Porter-Cologne Water Water Quality Runoff Quality Control Act; Clean Water Act Local Agencies City and/or County/ Varies by local jurisdiction and may include building permits, health department certifications, operating permits, or other types of approvals Local Utilities/ Water Management Districts/ Health Department/ Air Quality District

91 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 81 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS N ENERGY RICH ARID and water-scarce regions of the world, desalina- - tion is already a vitally important option. Many areas of the Caribbean, North Africa, Pacific Island nations, and the Persian Gulf I rely on desalinated water as a source of municipal supply. In some regions of the world, nearly 100% of all drinking water now comes from desalination – providing an essential and irreplaceable source of water. But the goal of unlimited, cheap fresh water from the oceans continues to be an elusive dream for most of us. Despite all the progress over the past several decades, and despite recent improvement in economics and tech- nology, desalination still makes only modest contributions to overall water supply. By 2005, the total amount of desalinated water produced in a whole year was about as much as the world used in a few hours. California is seriously considering desalination as a part of its water future, and there is no doubt that plants will be built. We are concerned, however, about desalination’s current technological and economic com- petitiveness, and about the ultimate impacts desalination plants could have along California’s coasts. Climate change and a lack of state and local regulatory mechanisms to ensure proper implementation of desali- nation intensify our concerns. This report identifies the advantages and disadvantages of desalination that must be carefully evaluated before any plant should be built. In addi- tion, we offer a set of conclusions and recommendations that should be met before desalination facilities are permitted and built.

92 82 CONCLUSIONS Perhaps the greatest barrier to desalination remains its high economic cost compared to alternatives, including other sources of supply, improved wastewater reuse, and especially more efficient use and demand management. We do not believe that the economic evaluations of desali- nation commonly presented to regulators and the public adequately account for the complicated benefits and costs associated with issues of reliability, quality, local control, environmental effects, and impacts on development. In general, significant benefits and costs are often excluded from the costs presented publicly. California should pursue less costly, less environmentally damaging water-supply alternatives first. Is desalination the ultimate solution to our water problems? No. Is it likely to be a piece of our water management puzzle? Yes. In the end, decisions about desalination developments will revolve around complex evaluations of local circumstances and needs, economics, financing, envi- ronmental and social impacts, and available alternatives. We urge that such decisions be transparent, honest, public, and systematic.

93 83 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — REFERENCES Barkham, P. 2004. “Thames tides set to top up London Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). tapwater.” , June 14, 2004. Guardian Unlimited “ToxFAX for Boron and Compounds.” September 1995. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts26.html . Baucher, B. Personal communication, City of Morro Bay, 2006. Al Fraij, K.M., A.A. Al Adwani, and M.K. Al Romh. “The Desalination future of seawater desalination in Kuwait.” In Birkett, J. Personal communication, 1999. , edited by S. Nicklin, 83-84. United and Water Re-Use Brining, D.L., W.C. Lester, W.N. Jessee, D.A. O’Leary, S. Kingdom:Tudor Rose, 2004. Bouregois, and M.S.A. Salam. “Development of Amalfitano, A. and K. Lam. “Power to seawater RO in environmental standards for combined desalination/power , vol. World Water and Environmental Engineering China.” generating stations in the Arabian Gulf Region.” 28, number 4 (2005):16-17. , vol. 39 (1981):255-260. Desalination American Desalting Association (ADA). “ADA meets in Broderick, P. “Desal Plant Winds Its Way Through Permit Washington D.C.” ADA News , vol. 12, issue 7 (1999):1. San Diego Business Journal Process.” , February 2, 2006. Sacramento, California. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Data series: American Water Works Association (AWWA). “Costs fall as CUURA421SA0, CUUSA421SA0, CUURA421SEHF01, membrane system numbers rise.” , vol. 50 MainStream CUUSA421SEHF01, CUURA421SEHF02, (2006):1. Denver, Colorado:American Water Works CUUSA421SEHFO2, CUURA422SA0, CUUSA422SA0, Association. CUURA422SEHF01, CUUSA422SEHF01, CUURA422SEHF02, CUUSA422SEHF02. 2006. Arroyo, Jorge.Presentation titled: “Desalination in Texas.” http://data.bls.gov . February 2004. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/Desalination/ . Desal/PPT/D-Salt%20San%20Angelo.pdf Burge, M. “Agency Agrees to Buy Water From Plant.” , December 21, 2005. Union-Tribune Awerbuch, L. “The status of desalination in today’s world.” , edited by S. Nicklin, 9- In Desalination and Water Re-Use . “American Water-Pridesa secures contract to Business Wire 12. United Kingdom:Tudor Rose, 2004. remedy and operate the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination plant.” November 16, 2004. http://www.highbeam.com/libra Bach, M. “Bureau of Reclamation Activities Related to ry/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:124705264&ctrlInfo=Round18 Desalination Research and Development for Informational %3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= . Purposes in Connection with H.R. 1071.” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. May 24, 2005.

94 84 REFERENCES Cambria Community Services District (CCSD). District Web California American Water (Cal Am) and RBF Consulting. site. 2006. http://www.cambriacsd.org/ecm/Services/Eng Proponent’s Environmental Assessment for the Coastal ineering/desalination_project.html Water Project . Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission. 2005. Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. Economic value of reliable . http://www.coastalwaterproject.com/in_pea.asp water supplies for residential water users in the State Water . SWC exhibit number 54. Prepared for Project services area California Coastal Commission (CCC). North Coast Area the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Los Plan Update: San Luis Obispo Local Costal Program. Major Angeles, California, 1987. Amendment No. 1-97. Revised Findings. 1998. . http://www.coastal.ca.gov/slorevf.pdf Chaudhry, S. “Unit cost of desalination.” California Desalination Task Force, California Energy Commission. California Coastal Commission (CCC). Seawater Sacramento, California, 2003. Web site accessed January Desalination and the California Coastal Act . 2004. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/ 2006. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/14a-3-2004- UnitCostofDesalination.doc . . desalination.pdf Cheng, R. Long Beach Water Department. Personal California Coastal Commission (CCC). Seawater communication, 2006. Desalination in California . 1993. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dtitle.html . Chesapeake Bay Program. Lower Food Web: Benthos. Web site accessed April 2006. California Coastal Commission (CCC). Staff Report and http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/benthos.cfm . Recommendation on Ocean View Plaza. 2005. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/5-2005-W6a.pdf . Chesher, R.H. “Biological impact of a large-scale desalination plant at Key West, Florida.” In Tropical Marine California Department of Health Services (CDHS). Drinking , edited by E.J. Ferguson Wood and R.E. Johannes, Pollution Water Notification Levels http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ . 2005. 99-181. New York:Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, . ddwem/chemicals/AL/notificationlevels.htm 1975. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). Issues City of Arroyo Grande. “Consideration of Supplemental in Desalination Plants and “Wholesale” Electricity Rates . Water Studies of the Nacimiento and Desalination Projects Draft. Water Desalination Task Force. Sacramento, and of Direction to Prepare Grant Application.” California, 2003. http://www.sanluisobispo. Memorandum, January 10, 2006. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). . com/multimedia/sanluisobispo/archive/Nac-Desal.pdf Statewide average of annual precipitation 1890-2002. 2006. City of Monterey. http://www.mo . Final. 2005. General Plan http://www.climate.water.ca.gov/docs/Average_annual_precip . nterey.org/generalplan/generalplan_final0503.pdf . itation_for_California_1890_2002.pdf City of Santa Barbara. City of Santa Barbara Water: Water California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). Water http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Gov Supply Sources. 2005. Desalination: Findings and Recommendations . Final. ernment/Departments/PW/SupplySources.htm?js=false Sacramento, California, 2003 Urban Water Management Plan City of Santa Cruz. . Draft. 2005 Integrated Energy California Energy Commission. http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca. Santa Cruz, California, 2005. . Sacramento, California, 2005. Policy Report http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-100-2005- us/wt/wtcon/Individual%20Chapters%20pdf%20format/20 007/CEC-100-2005-007-CMF.PDF . 05UrbanWaterManagementPlan.pdf California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Report on Fact Sheet: EPA’s Decision to Exempt Clean Air Task Force. the Interrelationship between Electricity and Water Policies Older Power Plants From New Water-Using Technology as it Relates to Saline Water Conversion through Seawater Requirements http://www.catf.us/publications/fact . 2004. Desalination and the Balance between Electricity and Water . sheets/20040216-EPA_PP_Decision.pdf Ratepayers . San Francisco, California, 2005. Cotruvo, J.A. “Water desalination processes and associated California State Lands Commission (CSLC). Resolution by health and environmental issues.” Water Conditioning and the California State Lands Commission Regarding Once , January 2005:13-17. Purification Through Cooling in California Power Plants. 2006. Del Bene, J.V., G. Jirka, and J. Largier. “Ocean brine CalPoly. Case Study – Routing the State Water Project disposal.” Desalination , vol. 97 (1994):365-372. Pipeline. 2005. Delyannis, A.A. and E. Delyannis. “Solar desalination.” http://ceenve.calpoly.edu/Sullivan/CE114/Pipeline/pipeline.htm Desalination , vol. 50 (1984):71-81.

95 DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 85 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE Glueckstern, P. “Desalination today and tomorrow.” Dudek & Associates, Inc. Environmental Impact Report for , vol. 19, no. 2 (1999):6-12. International Water and Irrigation Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant . EIR 03- 05-SCH#2004041081. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad, Griffin, R.C. and J.W. Mjelde. “Valuing water supply California, 2005. , reliability.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics vol. 82 (2000):414-426. Urban East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). Water Management Plan , Chapter 2. Oakland, California, Heberer, T., D. Feldman, K. Redderson, H. Altmann, and T. 2005. http://www.ebmud.com/water_&_environment/water Zimmermann. Removal of Pharmaceutical Residues and _supply/urban_water_management_plan/2005_uwmp/defaul Other Persistent Organics from Municipal Sewage and . t.htm Proceedings Surface Waters Applying Membrane Filtration. of the National Groundwater Association, 2nd International Draft Integrated Water Plan Program EIR . Prepared EDAW. Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting for the City of Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, California, 2005. . Minneapolis, Minnesota and Chemicals in Water Edinger, J.A. and V.S. Kolluru. “Power plant intake Westerville, Ohio:National Groundwater Association, entrainment analysis.” . April Journal of Energy Engineering October 9-11, 2001. 2000:1-14. Heller, J. “Water board green-lights desalination plant on Einav, Rachel and Fredi Lokiec. “Environmental aspects of a bay.” , March 16, 1999. Tampa Bay Business News , vol. 156 Desalination desalination plant in Ashkelon.” http://www.tampabay.org/press65.asp . (2003):79-85. Hennessey, V. “Cal Am Cries Foul on Desal Permit Pace.” Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources (EDWR). Monterey County Herald , February 14, 2006a. http://www.desware.net/desa4.aspx 2006. Hennessey, V. “Sand City Changes Midstream.” Monterey Thirsty for Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. County Herald , February 14, 2006b. Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California Water . Oakland, Santa Maria Times , Hill, K. “Reverse osmosis endorsed.” California:The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, January 17, 2006. 2005. Hoffman, P. Personal communication, Stone and Webster European Desalination Society (EDS). “The cost of water.” European Desalination Society newsletter , vol. 20, no. 2 Company, 1999. (May 2004). The Monterey County Howe, K. “Desal Decision Due.” Filtration and Separation. “Cutting the costs and Herald , May 3, 2006. environmental impact of seawater desalination through Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). power plant co-location.” 2005a. http://www.filtsep.com/lat Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and . est_features/webzine_feature/September_04_Poseidon.html . Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Vulnerability Filtration and Separation. “On the beach – seawater Press, 2001. intakes.” 2005b. http://www.filtsep.com/latest_features/fea . “Ashkelon desalination plant begins Jerusalem Post . ture_articles/121205_beachwells.html pumping potable water.” August 5, 2005. Gleick, P.H. Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Jimenez, J.L. “Water Agencies Are Studying Plan to Tap Water Resources . New York:Oxford University Press, 1993. Seawater.” , December 29, 2004. Union-Tribune Gleick, P.H., D. Haasz, C. Henges-Jeck, V. Srinivasan, G. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041229- Waste Not, Want Not: Wolff, K.K. Cushing, and A. Mann. . 9999-7m29desal.html . The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California Karnal, I. and G.F. Tusel. “A comparison of options for the Oakland, California:Pacific Institute for Studies in refurbishing of existing power/desalination plants.” In Development, Environment, and Security, 2003. Desalination and Water Re-Use . Leicester, England:Tudor The Gleick, P.H., G. Wolff, E.L. Chalecki, and R. Reyes. Rose Holdings Limited, 2004. New Economy of Water: The Risks and Benefits of Kennedy, J.F. Speeches of Senator John F. Kennedy: Globalization and Privatization of Fresh Water . Oakland, Presidential Campaign of 1960. Washington, D.C.:U.S. California:Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Government Printing Office, 1961. Environment, and Security, 2002. Kiparsky, M. and P.H. Gleick. “Climate Change and California Water Gleick, P.H., H. Cooley, and D. Groves. California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the . Oakland, California:Pacific 2030: An Efficient Future Literature.” In California Water Plan Update 2005, Volume Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and 4 . Sacramento, California: Department of Water Resources, Security, 2005. 2003.

96 REFERENCES 86 Padre Associations, Inc. Draft Initial Study/Mitigation Seawater Desalination – Long Beach Water Department. Negative Declaration Geotechnical/Hydrogeologic The Long Beach Method . Long Beach, California, 2005a. Investigation Activities for the Pending Desalination Project . http://www.lbwater.org/pdf/desal_lbmethod.pdf . Report prepared for the Cambria Community Services Long Beach Water Department. Urban Water Management District, Cambria, California, 2005. . Final. Long Beach, California, 2005b Plan Pankratz, T. “An Overview of Seawater Intake Facilities for http://www.lbwater.org/pdf/UWMP/2005UWMP.pdf . The Future of Desalination in Seawater Desalination.” Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). . Texas, Vol. 2: Biennial Report on Seawater Desalination . Final. Los Angeles, Urban Water Management Plan Texas Water Development Board, 2004. California, 2005. http://rio.twdb.state.tx.us/Desalination/The%20Future%20o http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp007157.pdf . f%20Desalination%20in%20Texas%20-%20Volume%202/ Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). Desalination – documents/C3.pdf . http://www.marin Overview. San Rafael, California, 2006. Pankratz, T. and J. Tonner. Desalination.com: An . water.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=364 Environmental Primer . Houston:Lone Oak Publishing, Urban Water Management Marina Coast Water District. 2003. Plan . Final. Marina, California, 2005. Pittman, C. “Desal delays boil into dispute.” St. Petersburg . http://www.mcwd.org/uwmp_final_12-27-05.pdf Times, August 16, 2005. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptim Mastromatteo, E. and F. Sullivan. “Summary: International es/882831921.html?MAC=6f1ad2567d7134e862bfbd6c2df1 symposium on the health effects of boron and its 3162&did=882831921&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Aug+ compounds.” , vol. 102, Environmental Health Perspectives 16%2C+2005&author=CRAIG+PITTMAN&pub=St.+Peter supplement 7 (November 1994):139-141. sburg+Times&printformat=&desc=Desal+delays+boil+into+ . dispute Monterey County Health Department (MCHD). http://www.owue. . 2003. Desalination and Public Health Poseidon Resources. Recirculated Environmental Impact . water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/DesalHealthEffects.doc Report . Huntington Beach, California, 2005a. http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/citydepartments/ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District . planning/major/poseidon.cfm (MPWMD). MPWMD comparative matrix – part 1, desalination. From a staff presentation at the 9/8/05 meeting Final Environmental Impact Report Poseidon Resources. . of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Carlsbad, California, 2005b. Monterey, California, 2005. http://www.carlsbaddesal.com/EIR.asp . Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Price, K. Personal communication, U.S. Bureau of (MPWMD). Strategic Planning Workshop, September 8, Reclamation. Denver, Colorado, 1999. 2005a. http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/board Raucher, R., D. Chapman, J. Henderson, M. Hagenstad, J. . packet/ 2005/20050908/04/item4_exh4g.htm Rice, J. Goldstein, A. Huber-Lee, B. Hurd, R. Linsky, E. Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The Value of Water: Concepts, Means, and M. Renwick. . Final. Fountain Valley, Urban Water Management Plan Empirical Evidence, and their Application to Water http://www.mwdoc.com/documents/2005 California, 2005. Management Decisions . Denver, Colorado:American Water UWMPFinal-Section4.pdf . Works Association Research Foundation, 2005. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Review of the . “World’s largest desalination plant open.” Red Herring Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap. August 4, 2005. Web site accessed January 2006. Water Science and Technology Board. Washington, http://www.redherring.com/PrintArticle.aspx?a=13035§ D.C.:National Academies Press, 2004. or=Regions . NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Natural Redlinger, J., Deputy Area Manager, Boulder Canyon Meeting the Challenges – Securing Sydney’s Resources. Operations Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Personal . 2004. Water Future communication, 2005. . http://www.dipnr.nsw.gov.au/waterplan/ Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Reisner, M. Memotechnique OTV. “Desalinating seawater.” , Planete Disappearing Water . New York:Viking Penguin, Inc., 1986. Technical Section, No. 31 (February 1999):1. Reynolds, J. “Group’s Suit Seeks to Block Cannery Row Overley, J. “Desal Plant Clears Hurdle – Environmental , February 17, 2006. Desal Plant.” Monterey County Herald Study is Approved but Final Decision on Poseidon Project is Roos, M., Chief hydrologist, California Department of Put Off Until Oct. 17.” The Wave: Orange County Register Water Resources (CDWR). Personal communication. , September 8, 2005. Weekly Sacramento, California, 2006.

97 A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT — 87 Toray. “Toray awarded first order for its High Boron Urban Water San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). Removal Reverse Osmosis Membrane Element for Seawater Management Plan . Final. San Diego, California, 2005. Desalination.” Press release, 2005. http://www.sdcwa.org/manage/pdf/2005UWMP/FinalDraft2 . http://www.toray.com/news/water/nr050714.html 005UWMP.pdf . Townsley, P., California American Water Company. Personal San Diego Daily Transcript . “Valley Center, Poseidon communication, 2006. Resources ink water purchase deal.” San Diego, California, December 20, 2005. The USAID U.S. Agency for International Development. Desalination Manual . Washington, D.C.:CH2M HILL Sedlak, D.L., and K.E. Pinkston. Factors Affecting the International for the U.S. Agency for International Concentrations of Pharmaceuticals Released to the Aquatic Development, 1980. Environment. Proceedings of the National Groundwater Association, 2nd International Conference on Desalting Handbook U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in . Desalination and Water for Planners. 3rd Edition . Minneapolis, Minnesota and Westerville, Water Purification Research and Development Report #72. Denver, Ohio:National Groundwater Association, October 9-11, Colorado:United States Department of the Interior, Bureau 2001. of Reclamation, Water Treatment Engineering and Research Group, 2003. Segal, D. “Singapore’s water trade with Malaysia and alternatives.” 2004. Web site accessed January 2006. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Sandia National http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/publications/relate Laboratories (USBR and SNL). Desalination and Water d_research/Segal-Singapore-Malaysia%2004_abstract.htm . Purification Technology Roadmap: A Report of the Cited costs are originally from: Morris, R. 2004. Executive Committee . Desalination & Water Purification Technological trends in desalination and their impact on Research & Development Report #95. Denver, Colorado: costs and the environment, presented at the World Bank United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Waterweek. Reclamation, Water Treatment and Engineering Group, 2003. Semiat, R., Deputy Director of the Technion Water Research Institute. Personal communications, Haifa, Israel, 2006. U.S. Water News. “Tampa Bay tapping bay as new source of U.S. Water News drinking water despite some concerns.” Water Semiat, R. “Desalination: present and future.” Online , 2003. http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arc International , vol. 25, no. 1 (2000):54-65. . quality/3tambay4.html Shams El Din, A.M. “The problem of ‘Red Waters’: A new Velter, G. Case studies: Ashkelon 100 MC/year BOT project. approach to its solution.” Desalination , vol. 60 (1986):75- Undated. Author contact: [email protected] 88. eaux.net Simon, P. Tapped Out: The Coming World Crisis in Water Voutchkov, N. “Shared infrastructure benefits desalination and What We Can Do About It . New York:Welcome Rain , Vol. 19 (2005):2. Rancho economics.” Source Magazine Publishers, 1998. Cucamonga, California:California/Nevada Section of the Skerritt, A. “Water Deal Has Loophole the Size of an American Water Works Association. St. Petersburg Times Aqueduct.” , January 27, 2006. Wahid, Z. “Desal Delay – The Landowner Has Not Signed a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Order No. Tax Deal or a Statement of How the Poseidon Plant Would 95-10. p. 45. Sacramento, California, 1995. Benefit the City, so the Public Hearing is Pushed Back.” The . “Cheaper water – the simple Sydney Morning Herald , January 12, 2006. Wave: Orange County Register Weekly solution at hand.” Sydney, Australia, 10 January 2006. 1998 IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Wangnick, K. . http://www.smh.com.au Inventory, No. 15 . Gnarrenburg, Germany:Produced by Taft, N., T. Cook, J. Black, and N. Olken. “Fish Protection Wangnick Consulting for the International Desalination Technologies for Existing Cooling Water Intake Structures Association, 1998. and Their Costs.” Prepared for a Symposium on Cooling Wangnick, K. 2002 IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. Inventory . Gnarrenburg, Germany :Produced by Wangnick http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ Arlington, Virginia, 2003. Consulting for the International Desalination Association, presentations/overview/taft.pdf . 2002. Talavera, J.L.P. and J.J. Quesada Ruiz. “Identification of the Wangnick/GWI. 2005 Worldwide Desalting Plants mixing processes in brine discharges carried out in Barranco . Oxford, England: Global Water Intelligence, Inventory del Toro Beach, south of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands).” 2005. Data provided to the Pacific Institute. Desalination , vol. 139 (2001):277-286.

98 88 REFERENCES Energy Down the Wolff, G., R. Cohen, and B. Nelson. Water Desalination Report (WDR). “Desal Prices Go Off- Drain: The Hidden Costs of California’s Water Supply . San Trend.” Water Desalination Report , vol. 42, no. 9 Francisco and Oakland, California:Natural Resources (2006a):2. Defense Council and the Pacific Institute for Studies in Water Desalination Report (WDR). “Energy prices reverse Development, Environment, and Security, 2004. Water Desalination Report desal trends.” , vol. 42, no. 7 World Health Organization (WHO). Boron in Drinking (2006b):2. Water: Background Document for Development of WHO Water Technology. Perth seawater desalination project, . Geneva, Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality http://www.water- Kwinana Australia. 1 February 2006. Switzerland:World Health Organization, 2003. technology.net/projects/perth/ . Rolling Revision of the World Health Organization (WHO). Weinberg, H.S., S.W. Krasner, S.D. Richardson, and A.D. WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Consensus of The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products Thruston, Jr. the Meeting: Nutrient Minerals in Drinking-Water and the (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Potential Health Consequences of Long-term Consumption Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study . Athens, Georgia:U.S. of Demineralized and Remineralized and Altered Mineral Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. http://www.epa. . Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Content Drinking-Water . gov/ATHENS/publications/reports/EPA_600_R02_068.pdf Organization, 2004. Urban West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD). Wright, A.G. “Tampa to tap team to build and run record- Water Management Plan . Final. Carson, California, 2005. Engineering-News Record size U.S. plant.” , March 8, 1999. . http://www.westbasin.org/pdf/UWMP_2005.pdf http://beta.enr.com/news/enrpwr8.asp . Wilf, M. and C. Bartels. “Optimization of seawater RO York, R. and M. Foster. Issues and Environmental Impacts , vol. 173 (2005):1-12. Desalination systems design.” Associated with Once-Through Cooling at California’s Winters, H., I.R. Isquith, and R. Bakish. “Influence of . California Energy Commission. Coastal Power Plants Desalinatio desalination effluents on marine ecosystems.” n, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005 Sacramento, California, 2005. vol. 30 (1979):403-410. publications/CEC-700-2005-013/CEC-700-2005-013.PDF . Wolff, Gary and Steven Kasower. Final Draft. The Portfolio Zhou, Y. and R.S.J. Tol. 2005. “Evaluating the costs of Approach to Water Supply: Some Examples and Guidance Water Resources desalination and water transport.” for Planners . Denver, Colorado:US Bureau of Reclamation, Research , vol. 41:W03003, doi:10.1029/2004WR003749. 2006.


100 654 13th Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 251-1600 • Facsimile: (510) 251-2203 Email: [email protected] • Main Website: www.pacinst.org ISBN No. 1-893790-13-4 ISBN-13 No. 978-1-893790-13-1 Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks

Related documents

CarbonFootprintofWater RiverNetwork 2009

CarbonFootprintofWater RiverNetwork 2009

The Carbon Footprint of Water by Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspiel and Wendy Wilson A River Network Report

More info »