Comments for GrokSurf's San Diego

Comment on San Diego County’s water sources: assessing the options by Burt Freeman

Burt Freeman — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:41:33 +0000

Interesting to see the current effort of Equinox Center on the many issues facing San Diego. The abstract from a previous Equinox report linked to the July 20, 2010 post containing Chart 6 (above), however, brings to mind much previous discussion in the comments section about its validity. It is unfortunate that the careful study of the cost of alternative water sources carried out by the San Diego County Water Authority was not presented. This September 15, 2010 report by Water Resource Manager Bob Yamada entitled Unit Cost of New Water Supply Alternatives offers a more quantitative and different result.

All of us looking at various proposals for additional water supply know that the cost of water depends on a careful assessment of each specific proposal. Not only are the amortized cost of the process plant and operating cost major factors, but that of the water delivery infrastructure is significant as well.

The potable water reuse Demonstration Project, which may lead to a City of San Diego conservation of some 10 million gallons per day from the North City Water Reclamation Plant, is not yet complete; earlier estimates resulted in a cost substantially greater than that of imported water. Water from another major supply source of 50 million gallons per day, the Carlsbad Desalination Plant, is currrently being negotiated; cost has not yet been determined, but is likely to be about the same.

Evaluation of local water alternatives requires a complicated technical, system and financial assessment; best left to the experts.

Comment on Water Authority responds to San Diego Taxpayers Educational Foundation report by merle Moshiri

merle Moshiri — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:02:40 +0000

This is fascinating. My only wish, and expectation, is that they do the same amount of due diligence regarding the Water Authority’s deal with Poseidon Resources, i.e. just exactly WHO and WHAT are they? What is their track record in desalination? What is their bond rating? Where is a copy of their prospectus? Who and where is their financial backing other than tax exempt bonds? An accounting of costs that took the Carlsbad plant from $270,000,000 a few years ago to over 530,000,000 (actually asking $770,000,000 in tax exempt bonds now). What happened? Right now, I’ve furnished more paper work on a home refinance than I’ve seen furnished on a desalination plant. I trust that will be forthcoming? Its all in the details right?

Merle Moshiri

Comment on PUD responds on SDG&E use of potable water for construction by Bill

Bill — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:42:24 +0000

SDG&E promises a lot. Our roads and driveways were suppose to be fixed by SDG&E in Fallbrook… Look out. They get to recoup large returns on investment projects, like the Sunrise Power link and then rate payers end up with the risk of damages in poorly managed projects.

Comment on San Diego regional water news roundup Nov 8-15, 2011 by Burt Freeman

Burt Freeman — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:29 +0000

The 10News article, above, cites a lowball cost of reused water for the Orange County Water District that is in need of a critical review. The water in question is 70.000 acre feet per year of treated, reused water that is injected into their aquifer, half of which is used as a salinity barrier, and half for aquifer recharge. Granted that the determination of water cost is complicated in such a system, allowance for treatment, delivery, injection, recovery and distribution should be included.

The San Diego County Water Authority staff reported on “Unit Cost of New Local Water Supply Alternatives” at the Authority’s board meeting on September 15, 2010.The report attributes to the Orange County reuse program a cost of $887 per acre foot plus recovery cost of $412/AF = $1299 (2010 dollars). It is not clear whether the additional costs of final treatment and delivery are included in this number.

The City of San Diego potable reuse program, also cited in the Authority’s report, is much more expensive, as well as containing a much different (and problematic?) reservoir sequestration plan.

Comment on San Diego Formation: new USGS deep monitoring well progress report November 2011 by Wes Danskin

Wes Danskin — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:42:17 +0000

George does an awesome job putting all this together! Never had a publicist before; feel like a Hollywood type.

Comment on Questions arise about the San Vicente Reservoir limnology study by Milton N. Burgess, P. E. FASPE

Milton N. Burgess, P. E. FASPE — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:08:44 +0000

Thanks for the info on the bill. The media does not pick up on this apparently, or I just did not see it. The next hill to climb is to get the bureaucrats moving to actually implement the legislation. Time is “a’wastin’”!

Comment on Questions arise about the San Vicente Reservoir limnology study by George J. Janczyn

George J. Janczyn — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:26:09 +0000

Fortunately SB918 (Pavley) passed in the legislature. It requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to adopt statewide uniform water recycling criteria for indirect potable water reuse for groundwater recharge and reservoir augmentation, as defined, by December 31, 2013. Further, it directs DPH to investigate the feasibility of developing criteria for direct potable reuse. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_918_bill_20100601_amended_sen_v95.pdf

Comment on Questions arise about the San Vicente Reservoir limnology study by Milton N. Burgess, P. E. FASPE

Milton N. Burgess, P. E. FASPE — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:52:31 +0000

The article is very encouraging. For ten years I have been writing letters to the editor of the UT attempting to discourage the use of the term toilet to tap, and encouraging our city leaders to begin the process of making San Diego water independent. The book I am writing (getting close to publishing it) is all about the socio-economic results of bad public water policy, using actual data and history and weaving a fictional story around it to make it more interesting. The mountain we all have to climb and conquer is the California Department of Health. The CDH has not even begun to consider direct potable reuse despite the water stress crisis we are into. Thanks for taking the lead in this effort. Keep up the good work.

Comment on San Diego regional water news roundup Oct 25-31, 2011 by merle moshiri

merle moshiri — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:11:50 +0000

while we’re on the subject of rising costs, care to take a peek at the request from Poseidon Resources for $780,000,000 from the IBank? just how much IS this water going to cost? You’ll never know,

merle moshiri, President
Residents for Responsible Desalination
Huntington Beach,ca

Comment on SDG&E quietly removes disputed Sunrise Powerlink “water filling station” in the San Carlos area of San Diego by Jason|MLS online MN

Jason|MLS online MN — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:23:08 +0000

Wow. So if Pilch did not persevere, the local government would not have done a thing and just let the whole thing go? I’m with Guy K feeling sorry for the residents directly affected by this.