I think it’s wonderful that DXV is pursuing alternative technologies, but given the difficulties of getting a project through the entitlement process in California, the “Long Beach” alternative is 25 to 30 years away from realization.

And there is another challenge to the use of this technology. During his presentation before the California State Assembly Select Committee on Regional Approaches to Addressing the State’s Water Crisis on August 21, Michael Motherway of DXV Water Technologies explained Depth-Exposed Membranes for Water Extraction – DEMWAX for short (thank God someone shortened something!) It is the technology DXV is exploring to replace Reverse Osmosis and microfiltration. In order to install DEMWAX to produce 50 million gallons per day drinking water, six acres of the ocean floor would be used.

Translation: Six acres of habitat would need to be disturbed so that the DEMWAX units could be installed under the sand.

I’d like to see the environmentalists who would get behind that!

Mr. Gleick, you question Mr. Arant’s use of the word ‘smear.’ I think you did smear the company by stating that its latest project in Carlsbad will “become the new case study in how NOT to do desalination, replacing the previous case study (also of a Poseidon effort) of how not to do desalination – Tampa Bay, Florida.”

Full disclosure – I have worked for Poseidon Resources as a consultant for five years.

I did exhaustive research before taking them on as a client. I not only wanted to protect my reputation, which I have built over twenty years of working in the water industry in Southern and Northern California and in Arizona, but I also wanted to protect my neighborhood. I live within sight of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station, location of the future Huntington Beach Desalination Facility, the Carlsbad project’s sister plant.

One of the questions I had was about the Tampa Bay project. Yes, it had problems. Yes, those problems cost Tampa Bay Water a lot of money to fix. However, they were not the fault of Poseidon Resources, and they were eventually fixed. The plant is now running successfully at capacity.

The short version is that Tampa Bay Water (TBW) thought they could save money on the project by doing the construction themselves. Changes were made to the intake pipeline placement, pretreatment mixers, number of cartridge filters installed, and the use of a slew of cheaper parts in constructing the plant.

Deviations from the original design resulted in accelerated plugging of the cartridge filters and, ultimately, higher RO membrane cleaning and maintenance costs.

If you are sufficiently geeky to want the full explanation, please contact me and I’ll send you a super-duper chart that outlines the differences between the design – which Poseidon would have used – and the actual Tampa Bay facility – as executed by the new contractor chosen by Tampa Bay Water.

Eventually, legal action was taken by TBW against a reverse osmosis membrane manufacturer, two insurance companies and two engineering firms. Poseidon Resources was never sued by TBW.

Ann Hildebrand, Chairwoman of the TBW Board of Directors at the time of the handover, has said of Poseidon Resources, “We knew that the success of our project would reside in the quality, knowledge, capabilities and commitment of our private sector partner. It is clear that we were right and that Poseidon Resources was the right choice. Poseidon’s expertise in financial and risk management matters and experience in the water industry have ensured that our desal plant is on time and on budget. We thank you for what Poseidon has contributed to the success of this critical project and look forward to our future relationship.”

Jerry Maxwell, General Manager at Tampa Bay Water during the same period, agreed, adding, “Poseidon Resources . . . bring[s] a depth of experience in the water supply development and financing industries that makes your partnership with us exceptionally valuable. As we prepare to assume ownership of Tampa Bay Desal . . . we are taking over a project that is on budget and on time despite the unpredictable market impacts of September 11 and the financial challenges of Stone and Webster and Covanta Energy.”

A further ‘smear’: “And of course the environment pays an additional cost not included here, because of the design Poseidon chose.”

Do you mean that the project should not be located at the chosen site? The California Coastal Commission disagrees with you; they have mandated that new desalination developments should be co-located on properties that already have industrial development along the coastline.

Furthermore, there are virtually NO environmental impacts from the design that Poseidon chose, as asserted by the Environmental Impact Report. The intake and outfall already exist. The site is zoned appropriately. Salinity of the water at the outfall returns to ambient levels within 300 yards. The same species that migrate through the area also live in Baja, which has saline levels equal to the concentrated water put back into the ocean.

Do you mean that Poseidon shouldn’t be using Reverse Osmosis or microfiltration? Virtually ALL of the desalination plants all over the world use these technologies. So does the Groundwater Replenishment System. So do the wellhead treatment projects of which I am aware. Would you rather that Poseidon Resources use an untested, unproven technology instead?

Regarding what you call a ‘private subsidy,’ Scott Maloni, Poseidon’s Vice President says, “In Carlsbad, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is providing our public water agencies with a $250-per-acre-foot incentive to buy water from our Carlsbad project and, in doing so, is reducing dependence on imported water. This same incentive has been applied to the Groundwater Replenishment System [in Orange County, CA.] The MWD funds are for the purchase of desalination water, only if delivered, and not for the financing of project construction.”

In closing, I would like to go on record as supporting reclamation, conservation AND desalination. We will need all the arrows in our quiver if we are to succeed in providing the water our population needs.

Actually, Gary, you are wrong: I’ve met several desalination plants I like, and I regularly say so. Let me say so again. I like what Long Beach is trying to do – advance the technology and do so in an environmentally responsible way, unlike Poseidon, which is pushing designs that are neither innovative nor environmentally responsible. Other plants I like? I like Singapore’s effort and the project at Perth, Australia, especially their initial strong water conservation programs followed by their effort to build a responsible intake and diffuser and wind turbines to produce at least part of the energy for the plant in a carbon-free manner. But there are plenty of desalination proponents who have never met a desal plant they DON’T like, and I believe that position is hurting the industry. I believe that Poseidon has done more to ruin the reputation of desalination with the public than any opponent of desalination.

I completely understand why you would be such a strong supporter of these public subsidies. They let you buy water from Poseidon at less than the real cost of producing it. That’s good for you, good for your ratepayers, and good for Poseidon. It is just bad for the general taxpayer providing this subsidy and MWD’s ratepayers who do not directly benefit. But you can’t pretend it is not a public subsidy. And the public has a right to weigh in on the appropriateness of this subsidy.
It is too bad that you, a general manager of a water district, apparently do not understand how water efficiency improvements are the same as water supply expansions, although that helps explain why data from your district appear to indicate that residential water use there is well over 250 gallons per person per day – twice the California average.
You said to me “I have the legal responsibility of providing my ratepayers with a safe and reliable water supply.” You also have a responsibility to your ratepayers to be fiscally responsible, and to pay no more for a safe and reliable water system than appropriate. Why would you sign an agreement to take expensive water from Poseidon, rather than spend LESS money to get MORE water by reducing inefficient uses? You say in your reply to me “Where else is MWD going to get 56,000 acre feet of new, drought-proof water supply for $250/ acre foot?” Hundreds of thousands of acre-feet are available at far less, through efficiency investments. Moreover, it is highly misleading of you to say that $250/AF provides 56,000 AF of water. It only provides a small part of the cost. The ratepayers will pay the full cost on top of this subsidy. And of course the environment pays an additional cost not included here, because of the design Poseidon chose. I do not understand your apparent inability to see the direct parallel between an AF of real reduction through things like waterless urinals compared to “new supply?”

Finally, I’m not saying that Private Activity Bonds shouldn’t be used for infrastructure like this. I’m saying that this is a public subsidy, should be acknowledged as such, and that there should be a debate about the size and appropriateness of offering such public subsidies to a private company that pretends – and says over and over again – that it doesn’t need any.

“Smear” Poseidon? By pointing out the facts? If the project is adversely affected by facts, so be it. If, at the end of the day, Poseidon cannot build this plant without the public subsidy, and your ratepayers cannot pay the true, full costs, then it obviously shouldn’t be built.