Presentation to the CA Seawater Desalination Task Force

By Marc Beique

Desal as a Local Water Supply Solution; Environment; Growth

Mr. Jonas Minton, Chair & Water Desalination Task Force Members

c/o Charles Keene, Executive Officer Water Desalination Task Force California Department of Water Resources, Southern District 770 Fairmont Avenue Glendale, California 91203 Phone: (818) 543-4620 FAX: (818) 543-4604 Email:

Re: Monterey Workshop Comments

Dear Mr. Minton:

Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions concerning desalination at your Task Force Workshop in Monterey this evening. We applaud the positive approach of the Task Force to desalination. The number of items on which you have reached consensus to date encourages us.

As a proponent of the prompt completion of a reliable, long term water supply solution for our community, Water for Us would like to address some points that are salient to our community, although they may not be applicable to Californians as a whole.

As you know, our community has been involved in a water supply debate for over 25 years. With last week's vote of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD ) Board to deny the construction of a small dam on the Carmel River, we have reached a point of no return with respect to our water supply problems.

Many different water supply strategies have been studied as part of the dams proposed by the MPWMD and later by California American Water Company (Cal-Am.) Of these 74 different alternatives, only desal appears to be a reasonably cost-effective solution. Cal-Am is now proposing a co-located desal facility at Moss Landing to begin to address our water supply needs. It is important that this project not be derailed.

The issues that have polarized water planning in our community for so many years can be summarized in a two words: "Environment" and "Growth." These two words have created havoc in our ability to solve our water supply problems. Our current water supply shortfall seriously threatens our ability to survive even a limited drought, and puts the public's health, safety and welfare in peril.

Some explanation is in order:
1. Environment:

a. In the name of the environment, tremendous resistance has been brought to bear on the development of new water supplies. The local water management district has been easily used as a political pawn in this process.

b. All human activities affect the environment. Human habitation has always been closely linked to water resources, including seashores and river deltas. This pattern is currently reflected in countries throughout the world, including the USA, and cannot be expected to change within our lifetimes. Although we fully advocate environmental sensitivity and caution, we cannot be asked to create a perfect environment where none existed before.

c. Under the environmental banner, we have won a tremendous victory in not allowing a dam on the Carmel River. The protection and preservation of public trust resources like the Carmel River, steelhead and red-legged frogs must be considered as a major factor in any deliberation for a desal plant in our community.

d. Desal is more expensive than the water we have been obtaining from the Carmel River. Since only us, the local water users, will pay for a new desal plant, we must use caution in loading up the desal plant with environmental mitigation costs that we cannot afford. It is much more important that we have water.

2. Growth:

a. Water is an extremely poor planning tool from the standpoint of limiting growth. First, water is one of the fundamental necessities of life--we cannot live without water for more than about three days. Water is essential to our health and well-being, our livelihoods and our quality of life. Our community has tried to use water as a growth-limiting tool for a generation now. The results of this experiment are dismal indeed--although our water supply has been reduced 25% in the last 25 years, our population has actually increased by about 23%. This is only possible because we are some of the most frugal water users in the State. However, we are living more and more on borrowed time. A drought of any consequence will seriously damage our community, since we have no reserves.

b. We are not prepared as a society to call growth what it is--"population." Even in CEQA, the guiding criterion in public decisions is to ensure the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian. This approach recognizes people and their needs.

c. Those that would use water to limit growth have hamstrung local jurisdictions that are charged with the planning of our communities. We cannot allow water management agencies and suppliers to set production levels lower than what is forecast by the general plans of our municipalities, cities and counties, particularly for large, expensive projects.

d. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social or economic development. What is more important to our development than water?

e. CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR. As a state agency, you might best assist us by promoting and funding scientific studies that can lead the way to improved mitigation techniques and more efficient use of our resources.

Political exploitation and a lack of proper planning has brought us to this juncture. We are now living on borrowed time--with our water supply reduced to the absolute legal minimum, we have forfeited any chance of surviving an extended drought in our area.

We ask that the policies of the Water Desalination Task Force be coordinated with other State and Federal agencies, including the California Coastal Commission and NOAA, and that these policies recognize the need for balance, and room for imperfection, in the development of large-scale water supplies. We can ill afford to continue to discount ourselves.

Respectfully Submitted,

Water for Us By: Marc Béïque, President