The Bay Delta Conservation Plan – Just Does Not Make Sense!

Late in January while doing some research on water problems in Northern California, I came across a great article by independent science journalist, editor and teacher Nicholas Gerbis as he discussed converting salt water into drinking water, and I’d like to share it with you:

It seems strange that water should be such a scarce resource when our planet is drenched in 326 million trillion gallons of the stuff. But it turns out that less than one-half of 1 percent of it is drinkable. Out of the rest, 98 percent is oceanic salt water and 1.5 percent remains locked up in icecaps and glaciers. The stark irony of Samuel Coleridge’s immortal line “Water, water, everywhere / Nor any drop to drink” is manifest each year in coastal disasters around the world, like Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, as people within sight of entire oceans are threatened with dehydration. Between droughts, natural disasters and the large-scale redistribution of moisture threatened by climate change, the need for new sources of potable water grows with each passing day. Each year, the global population swells by another 85 million people, but worldwide demand for freshwater increases at twice the rate of population growth, doubling every 20 years or so [sources: UNDP]. Throughout the world, our most vital resource is under stress from pollution, dam construction, wetland and riparian ecosystem destruction, and depletion of groundwater aquifers, with poor and marginalized populations getting the worst of it [sources: UNESCO-WWAP]. So why can’t we convert seawater into drinking water? Actually, we can and we do. In fact, people have been making seawater drinkable at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. But when taken to the scale of cities, states and nations, purifying seawater has historically proven prohibitively expensive, especially when compared to tapping regional and local sources of freshwater. However, as advancing technology continues to drive costs down and freshwater continues to grow scarcer and more expensive, more cities are looking to seawater conversion as a way to meet this vital demand.

See how and where seawater is being converted into drinking water today, including how desalination is bolstering disaster relief in Haiti.

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/27665-g-word-water-desalination-video.htm


How and Where is Desalination Used Today?

Desalination has come a long way in the 2,400 years or so since people boiled salt water and collected the steam in sponges. Yet, the most widely used method is still based on the same principle: distillation. Essentially, distillation artificially mimics what occurs in nature: Heated water evaporates to become water vapor, leaving salts and impurities behind, and then condenses as it cools to fall as fresh water (aka rain). Distillation plants refine and speed up this process by applying artificial heating and cooling and by evaporating water under lower air and vapor pressure, which significantly reduces its boiling point. This method requires a great deal of energy, however, so distillation plants are often located alongside power plants, where waste heat is available to bring the water up to a volatile temperature [source: Water-technology.net].

Another method, reverse osmosis (RO) desalination, uses pressure to force water through filters, straining out other substances at the molecular level. Developed in the 1960s, the process became feasible on a commercial scale in the 1970s, ultimately replacing distillation as the method used in most new desalination facilities, in part because it requires less energy [source: NRC-WSTB]. Besides removing salt, both methods remove virtually every mineral and most biological or organic chemical compounds, producing water that is safe to drink, far exceeding federal and state drinking water standards.

So how widespread is desalination? Specific figures are elusive, as new plants are constantly being added and little data exists concerning plants that have shut down. It’s also tricky to separate counts of distillation versus RO plants. However, a good ballpark figure is 8,000 RO seawater desalination plants globally producing a total of about 10 billion gallons (37,854,117 cubic meters) of drinking water each day, with older distillation plants still outnumbering RO.

The largest users of desalination globally in terms of volume capacity are (in descending order) Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States, Spain, Kuwait and Japan. Desalination provides 70 percent of drinking water in Saudi Arabia. Within the United States, Florida, California, Texas and Virginia are the largest users, and the country as a whole has the capacity to desalinate more than 1.4 billion gallons (5.6 million cubic meters) of water per day. To put that in perspective, that equates to less than 0.01 percent of municipal and industrial water use nationwide.

Cruise ships, submarines and ships of war have been using desalination for decades. One impressive example, the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson, can make some 400,000 gallons (1,514 cubic meters) of its own freshwater every day, half of which is excess water that at press time is being used to aid disaster relief in Haiti [source: Padgett].

As much as desalination has increased over the years, it is still just a drop in the bucket. In this next section, we’ll look at what’s holding us back from a full-on sea change in freshwater supply.

The Cost of Desalination!

There’s little doubt that the world needs more drinking water. It’s also abundantly clear that the need will keep pace with mounting population growth and the pressures brought about by global climate change. In the United States alone, experts agree that water demand already exceeds supply, projecting that 36 states will confront shortfalls within the next three years. Within 15 years, almost 2 billion people globally will live in areas confronting water scarcity, and, according to most model scenarios, such shortfalls will only worsen under climate change [source: Strassmann, IPCC]. Indeed, the availability and distribution of water is widely discussed as a likely determining factor in future global stability [source: USGS].

So, what is holding us back from diving in headfirst? Until recently, purifying seawater cost roughly five to 10 times as much as drawing freshwater from more traditional sources [source: USGS]. RO filters have come a long way, however, and desalination today costs only half of what it did 10 to 15 years ago. Consequently, transportation, energy and environmental costs have now replaced technology as the primary impediments to large-scale desalination.

Energy consumption accounts for as much as one-third of the total cost of desalinated water, making even coastal plants expensive to operate. Inland states must also grapple with the sizeable expense of transporting seawater inland. They can opt to use local brackish (salty) water sources, instead, but then they face a different problem: how to dispose of the byproduct, a concentrated salt solution that coastal sites have the luxury of pumping back into the ocean (a practice that remains controversial in environmental circles). Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) plants are one way out, but they drive up the energy costs of what is already an energy-intensive process.

Is desalination cost-effective? The answer probably depends on where you live. Given the high costs of freshwater importation and reclamation, desalinating seawater is an increasingly attractive option for water-stressed areas. The potential for desalination is limited mostly by social, political, environmental and economic considerations, which vary from place to place. Any way you look at it, the rising tide of desalination seems likely to remain a growing part of our water portfolio for years to come.

I would like to thank Nicholas Gerbis for such a wonderful article. Most if not all of the California Politicians are jumping on board the Governor’s tunnel project, and are blind to this information.


State comes to Fresno with $25 billion Bay Delta Conservation Plan:

BY MARK GROSSI The Fresno Bee – January 13, 2014

After seven years of work, the plan to fix California’s biggest water problem is 34,000 pages long — roughly 24 times the size of “War and Peace.” And it does not read like a novel.

It’s the highly technical Bay Delta Conservation Plan. To help people understand it, state leaders are appearing in a dozen cities, starting this week in Fresno. Released in mid-December, the plan will be available for comment until April 14.

The $25 billion plan is a high-stakes blueprint to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a vital water supply hub that continues in ecological decline. The plan features two large water tunnels and habitat restoration to protect many species of animals.


The future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the subject of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan:

Delta Picture!

Public Review ends June 13, 2014.

The Draft BDCP and BDCP Draft EIR/EIS are being made available to the public for a 180-day review period (including a 60-day extension). The public review and comment period is effective December 13, 2013 through June 13, 2014.

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/PublicReview.aspx

There will be no presentation or panel. State water leaders say the meeting is an open house where people can personally approach experts at informal exhibits and ask questions.

Those wishing to make a verbal comment will be directed to a court reporter. Written comments will be accepted also. The process is part of the legally required review of the plan.

“We’ve reached an important step,” said spokeswoman Nancy Vogel of the state Department of Water Resources. “We’re actively soliciting comments from people to help us refine the alternatives and better understand the potential impacts.”

The plan, which could become final by the end of the year, holds a lot of interest for the southern two-thirds of the state.

The delta is the source of water for 25 million people as well as irrigation water for 3 million acres of farmland — much of it in the San Joaquin Valley. The delta also has been a battleground for decades over declining fish species, such as salmon and delta smelt.

State water leaders have released delta plan drafts over a few years to iron out trouble spots with many interest groups. Plan changes, such as reducing the size of proposed tunnels, have been made to accommodate concerns, officials said.

But strong opposition remains from environmental, fishing and delta communities. Issues swirl around costs, water yield to cities and farms, benefits to nature and loss of farming land in the delta. The project is expected to wind up in court.

In the Valley, the agricultural water community says it is important to understand all facets of the monstrous document.

Farm water users, along with Southern California water customers, would foot $17 billion of the $25 billion project cost to pay for the tunnels, operation and maintenance.

Farm districts hope the project will get them a more reliable flow of Northern California water, which has been limited by drought and environmental protections in the delta for dying fish.

The tunnels would connect the Sacramento River with large pumping plants in the south delta, excluding the delta and its sensitive ecosystem from the water export equation.

But does the $17 billion contribution pencil out for water users? Will there be enough water to justify the cost? It’s too early to know without more finely tuned studies proposed for the next few years, they say.

Along with Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, the biggest funding contributions will come from farm water entities, Westlands Water District and the Kern County Water Agency. All are studying the costs.

“It’s a business discussion,” said Westlands general manager Tom Birmingham. “We know the risk of doing nothing is great. The status quo is not sustainable.”

Westlands will make comments by April, he said. The Kern County Water Agency, which buys Northern California water from the State Water Project, is expected to make comments on the plan, too.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen it all in one piece,” said Brent Walthall, assistant general manager for the Kern water agency. “We’ve got review teams going through it. The state has done a good job getting this document to the public. Now we have to respond.”

More online:

Read more about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, including how to download a copy and where other public meetings will be held.

Michael Burton Sr.

Michael Burton Productions, LLC (dba) AAAA Hyacinth Harvesting

One thought on “The Bay Delta Conservation Plan – Just Does Not Make Sense!

  1. Disregarding whether dorhgut has been induced by climate change or not (drought is a regular occurrence in Australia and the severity of dorhguts has a lot to do with El Nino currents in the Pacific), Perth has a dry climate and we could never rely on rainfall for our water needs. (Kwinana is a suburb of Perth.) Thus we get our water from other sources: and now desalination. The former is dependent on rainfall and so is not sustainable at the levels we extract it. The latter is resource intensive (it took a huge amount of money to build the plant) and there are more efficient ways to manage water supply.Sydney, on the other side of Australia is having similar problems with water supply and desalination plants have been discussed as a solution. Patrick Troy, Darren Holloway & Bill Randolph believe desalination is unnecessary and discussed>practical measures to make households water-independentin their article Saving Sydney’s water in the Summer 2005/06 issue of . Unfortunately the article is not available online. They believe that households should collect their own rainfall (although this is not as reliable in Perth as it is in Sydney), but more importantly water should be recycled within the household. Recycling water does not mean drinking sewerage (black water)! It means re-using grey water for flushing of toilets, laundry and use in gardens or landscaping. Black water from toilets may be treated on site in composting toilets, etc (although this is not always possible).These ideas can be scaled up for use in industry. Grey water would be used for different things and may need some in-house treatment. The main point is that every household or company, factory, farm, etc is responsible for their own water use and re-use. They may be connected to scheme water (particularly for drinking and washing), but making the best use of water will ensure water, and money, is not wasted.It may sound airy-fairy, but government interventions thru building codes, incentives for installing the necessary infrastructure, etc could make it a possibility.

Leave a Reply