Comments for DesalAlternatives.org

Comment on Agenda for Water Security by Craig Bush

Craig Bush — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:55:31 +0000

Granite Construction have several rainwater retrieval systems available now for homeowners. This provides economic stimulus for our community as well as conserve water. We have all the water we need if we embraced the new conservation technologies. We should be fitting public buildings. It is folly to build a desal to grow fescue. To treat water for watering plants is a waste.

Comment on Agenda for Water Security by Craig Bush

Craig Bush — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:47:29 +0000

San Diego water district imports 100% of its water. Santa Barbara chose to import and close down their desal. San Diego’s studies determined that desal even with a 100% import was not economical. Santa Cruz does not import any water and is considering exporting some to soquel creek district? San Diego and Santa Barbara are not wrong to shoot down the desal. Our water managers are the ones who are wrong. Our desal will be the mostly costly ever designed to create seawater from brine?

Comment on Economic Prosperity vs. Environment? by Barbara Riverwoman

Barbara Riverwoman — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:43:38 +0000

Wonderful article. Places the issue in a context of sustainability and mutual respect.

Comment on Agenda for Water Security by John mcguire

John mcguire — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:46:18 +0000

My concern centers around the unknowns of releases of water for fish. I can see an option where the department of fish and game (dfg) wants the river to return to pre human days with abundant runs of fish. So they determine that all natural flows be returned to the river and the northern creeks. They can ask this because, with a desal plant, the city can make all the water it needs. Beware the building of even a small plant, there may be no limit to its size and cost after dfg gets done with us.

Comment on Agenda for Water Security by Marion & Jeremy Shonick

Marion & Jeremy Shonick — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:34:48 +0000

In order for the city’s new ordinance, which by the way only came about because they could not ignore a groundswell movement of scepticism towards the proposed desal plant, there needs to be an immediate moratorium on all expenses related to this project. Only after voters have decided whether or not to further explore a desalination plant should the constituents’ money be spent.

Comment on Agenda for Water Security by Craig Bush

Craig Bush — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:23:21 +0000

We want a feasibility study to determine the costs to convert secondary treatment water to tertiary. Can this tertiary water be used to supply water for fish habitat and river restoration? How much water will be made available from the final phase tertiary process? Is final phase tertiary water more pure and pristine then our present tapwater origins?

Comment on draft memo to City Council by Doug Engfer

Doug Engfer — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:31:04 +0000

* [II.B.2] Note that the outcomes of the public meeting should include agreed upon and shared assumptions.

* [General] In the context of the costs-oriented discussion, we need to be mindful of the City Water Department creating a sustainable financing model for the life of the project. Many of their current projections run through only 2020, when the 711 funds run to 0 under current assumptions. By stopping there, we could be missing some hidden costs that are to come.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you want to chat about any of it.

Best,

Doug

Comment on draft memo to City Council by Doug Engfer

Doug Engfer — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:28:15 +0000

noted). Specifically, those operating costs should be in the context of a planned 50-year project effective life (Loch Lomond just turned 50, after all), including planned maintenance and repairs and, in the case of any “machines” (such as a desal plant), the costs of decommissioning the plant (presumably would have to meet the same requirements here as an oil well – restore previous state of the parcel and remove equipment).

* [II.A.3] Note that we need to reach agreement on the definition of UCSC baseline. Kocher is playing fast and loose with this right now in his public statements.

Comment on draft memo to City Council by Doug Engfer

Doug Engfer — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:24:46 +0000

conclusion. I’m willing to believe that we could use one of Cemex’s quarries for less than $130MM.

* [Needed Information] I would like to see a water-use “budget” from the City, showing the proportions of our use that go to (1) residential, (2) commercial/industrial, (3) UC, (4) government, (5) Agriculture, and (6) recreational (parks, golf courses). This would help us focus our efforts to optimize the bang/buck ratio for conservation efforts.

* [Water supply costs] Any reckoning of the costs of any of these alternatives must account for construction and operating costs (as you’ve…

Comment on draft memo to City Council by Doug Engfer

Doug Engfer — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:21:19 +0000

First of all, Rick, thanks for this. Well thought out and conveyed. I have several thoughts that I’d like to share:

* [General] I would like for us to be more-comprehensive in the alternatives that we ask the City to consider. Specifically, I would like to make sure that additional (surface) on- or off-stream storage is considered. This would mean either (1) expanding Loch Lomond, or (2) using some other site (my favorite: one of the decommissioned quarries). At a minimum, since the city has said that these options aren’t feasible, we want to understand the facts and assumptions behind…