I wish groups like ABAG would worry more about our long-term water needs before they force more housing down cities' throats. Some elected officials seem to get it, but I don't see that kind of thinking on the Peninsula right now. Instead of spending on high-cost rail in violation of the Proposition that supposedly funded it, I have often wondered whether desalination would be attractive to voters. Today's Wall Street Journal article sheds some light on the issue. Here are a couple of factoids about efforts in California:
Santa Barbara may spend up to $40 million to update and reactivate a desalination plant it mothballed after another drought ended about 24 years ago. With its local reservoirs at less than 30% of capacity, the City Council voted in September to pursue reopening the facility, which can turn seawater into the equal of nearly three-fourths of Santa Barbara's normal demand for drinking water.
Poseidon Water, a Boston company that develops water systems, is using $1 billion in private financing to construct a desalination plant in Carlsbad, CA. It aims to provide the San Diego County Water Authority with about 8% of its water, at a cost up to twice that of water that the agency imports from northern California.
As of 2013, there were 26 desalination plants in California–up from 18 in 2006, according to most recent data. Some are operated by government agencies while others are privately funded.
So the cost per gallon is high and the article describes how some marine life can be at risk at the entry point (which can be moderated), but right now what choice do we have? Shouldn't any and every major proposed development in California have to demonstrate where the water will come from?


Leave a Reply