Marin Voice

JIM FRYER, former water conservation manager of Marin Municipal Water District, has seriously dented the district's major assumptions about the need for desalination to supplement water conservation.

[Michael]

Well written. I read Mr Rubin's hit piece last month and am amazed that such garbage ever made it to the editorial page. If he weren't a regular columnist, he never would be allowed to take such a cheap shot at Mr Fryer and his excellent report.
Wake up Marin county! The MMWD is moving inexorably towards desalination, spearheaded by board members who were elected with the blessing of the Sierra Club. Traitors to the environmental movement.
Desalination is worse than an expensive white elephant. It is the most harmful option out there.

Michael Hartnett (R) Conservationist

[Old Water Buffalo]

Conservation is easy if you raise the water rates high enough.

[Marcus Pierre]

This is a nutty op-ed. Mainland criticizes MMWD for (he speculates) seeking a "paid" consultant to project rainfall patterns under climate change, but ignores the fact that Jim Fryer is being PAID by a Washington DC group to try and defeat MMWD's desal proposal (as part of the group's agenda to stop desal everywhere). Mainland has the chutzpah to attack Alex Foreman and David Behar as if they are somehow rabid pro-development desal mongers. In fact, Foreman has been the long-time chair of the local Sierra Club and over many, many years (far more than Mainland has been around) has established his environmental bona fides. Same for Behar: he has worked for first-rate environmental organizations and is true environmentalist. Mainland is clearly more interested in drumming up hysteria and smearing good people than in finding good policy grounded on real facts.

[Marinite]

Experience elsewhere has shown that desal plants release thermal loads, brine, and chlorine into sea water. Brine can increase normal sea temps by up to 10 degrees Celsius which hugely impacts marine ecosystems. How Rubin had the gall to castigate a respected MMWD fellow bespeaks Rubin's agenda, not in serving the best environmental solution, but in promoting business denigrating local government's ability to serve the public-here, regarding the supply of water. Every nasty card will be played, and then some, to require the public to pay for what it does not need so that private companies can benefit by construction and eventual running of the facility. The "fear" card is disgusting and is part of this scenario.

[BGHOZ]

I know I am going to make some one angry at me for this one, but what if every household would have a cistern (?)(water collector) in the back yard and
use it for every day uses? Like say watering the plants, dogs,cats and flushing'
the toilet? We did it back in the '70's when we had a shortage, gee homeowners
just think of all the money you would be saving...Makes sense, and with the future weather prospect this would be as good a time as any. Get them wine barrels out there....(or whatever) to collect and have it ready when you need it.

[BGHOZ]

Go Green Marin, Go Green....

[Michael]

Marcus Pierre wrote:

This is a nutty op-ed. Mainland criticizes MMWD for (he speculates) seeking a "paid" consultant to project rainfall patterns under climate change, but ignores the fact that Jim Fryer is being PAID by a Washington DC group to try and defeat MMWD's desal proposal (as part of the group's agenda to stop desal everywhere). Mainland has the chutzpah to attack Alex Foreman and David Behar as if they are somehow rabid pro-development desal mongers. In fact, Foreman has been the long-time chair of the local Sierra Club and over many, many years (far more than Mainland has been around) has established his environmental bona fides. Same for Behar: he has worked for first-rate environmental organizations and is true environmentalist. Mainland is clearly more interested in drumming up hysteria and smearing good people than in finding good policy grounded on real facts.

This is a nutty reply.
Yes Mr. Fryer is paid by a non-profit (Big bucks!!) So what. What's so great about desal anyway?
Since when does being in the Sierra club make you untouchable as an environmentalist?
The fact remains Marin doesn't need desal and its huge costs and energy consumption. Santa Barbara gets half our rainfall and shut its down.
If something doesn't make sense, there's probably something more to it.
Could it be that development interests are pushing the MMWD into this??

[Michael]

BGHOZ wrote:

I know I am going to make some one angry at me for this one, but what if every household would have a cistern (?)(water collector) in the back yard and
use it for every day uses? Like say watering the plants, dogs,cats and flushing'
the toilet? We did it back in the '70's when we had a shortage, gee homeowners
just think of all the money you would be saving...Makes sense, and with the future weather prospect this would be as good a time as any. Get them wine barrels out there....(or whatever) to collect and have it ready when you need it.

That makes too much sense. That's why GM Paul Helliker would never consider it.

[BGHOZ]

Yes, I suppose so...

[Paul Helliker]

This item was posted last week in the Pacific Sun, and appears here again in the IJ. I appreciate Ed sharing this item about water conservation activities at the Marin Municipal Water District and the recent report from Food and Water Watch (FWW). As he knows, MMWD dedicated almost all of its Board meeting on June 24 for a thorough discussion of the FWW report, which lasted over 2-1/2 hours. A further discussion on the report was held today at MMWD's Water Conservation Summit.

FWW's conclusions concerning the potential savings from conservation activities are not that different from MMWD's 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan. Mr. Fryer made this point himself today, as he was reviewing his main conclusions in the FWW report.

MMWD's Plan identified approximately 5,000 acre-feet of demand reduction per year by 2025 that could be achieved with a significant investment of MMWD funds, as well as direct expenses by MMWD's ratepayers. That amount would total approximately $120 million during that time period.

With additional investment by MMWD in real-time metering and additional leak detection activities, the demand reduction can reach more than 6,000 acre-feet per year. This would be accomplished through replacement of toilets and washing machines with water-saving versions, reduction in landscape irrigation usage, improvements in commercial, industrial and institutional water use, and a host of other programs. This is very close to the 6,500 acre-feet per year that FWW estimated could be saved.

MMWD does differ from FWW in its estimates of how much water can be saved with landscape irrigation changes. 60% of the savings that FWW anticipates in their report would come from a 40% reduction in landscape water use. That is a number that is well beyond even the draconian reductions occurring in Las Vegas. MMWD projects that a more reasonable target would be 10-15% reduction in landscape water usage, and even that would require changes in irrigation systems and landscape plantings, which will not be inexpensive to accomplish.

In any case, reductions of 5,000 acre-feet in demand per year are already built into MMWD's planning scenarios, which show that we can make up half of the imbalance between supply and demand with conservation. The rest will have to come from new supplies. A marginal reduction in demand by an additional 1,500 acre-feet per year would reduce, but would not eliminate the need for additional water supply. And with climate change looming (which will mean longer and deeper droughts, as well as bigger floods) and demand hardening reducing the ability to conserve in times of drought, the water supply side of the equation is getting even worse.

Without additional supply, a recurrence of a drought like 1976-77 would lead to drastic rationing similar to what we had to do in 1976-77. And this time, there would be no water available from Southern California supplies that could be imported via a pipeline on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. That is the scenario that Alex Forman and David Behar mentioned last week, and is the scenario that MMWD customers have quite clearly told the Board of Directors that they do not want to experience again.

[Paul Helliker]

And, in response to Michael Hartnett's comment about rainwater catchment systems, we have discussed that topic multiple times at MMWD Board meetings, some of which Mr. Hartnett attended. Rainwater catchment works well in climates like Austin, Texas, or Brisbane, Australia, where it rains throughout the year. In our climate, catching rainwater in the winter would not be useful for irrigation in the summer, unless one installed a large tank (e.g., 10,000 gallons or more). For such a system, and even for small systems of 50-100 gallons, the cost per gallon of water saved is quite expensive (contact the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network if you want verification of the costs of such systems.) So, if Mr. Hartnett wants to suggest that we use scarce ratepayer funds to pay for systems that cost three times that of desalination, it is his prerogative to do so, but MMWD Board members will likely be inclined to fund more cost-effective solutions.

[BGHOZ]

Paul Helliker wrote:

And, in response to Michael Hartnett's comment about rainwater catchment systems, we have discussed that topic multiple times at MMWD Board meetings, some of which Mr. Hartnett attended. Rainwater catchment works well in climates like Austin, Texas, or Brisbane, Australia, where it rains throughout the year. In our climate, catching rainwater in the winter would not be useful for irrigation in the summer, unless one installed a large tank (e.g., 10,000 gallons or more). For such a system, and even for small systems of 50-100 gallons, the cost per gallon of water saved is quite expensive (contact the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network if you want verification of the costs of such systems.) So, if Mr. Hartnett wants to suggest that we use scarce ratepayer funds to pay for systems that cost three times that of desalination, it is his prerogative to do so, but MMWD Board members will likely be inclined to fund more cost-effective solutions.

I don't like your Scare tactic remarks,this kind of system has been used for centuries. I am sure there are many folks that would agree. BGHOZ

[Marin Native]

BGHOZ wrote:

<quoted text>I don't like your Scare tactic remarks,this kind of system has been used for centuries. I am sure there are many folks that would agree. BGHOZ

I don't agree with your idea of individual catch system tanks being the answer. I am against desal. I don't like the idea of drinking bay water and I am not convinced it is necessary. I do appreciate the detailed comments by the GM, however I am still not convinced of the necessity.

I am not your typical anti-desal poster in that I don't think this is as black and white as some folks. I believe the MMWD board should be exploring all other sources of water in addition to conservation. I think we should be concerned that a drought could last three years leaving us dry.

I would like to know how much water can be gained by better use of the existing resevoirs. For instance, I believe Phoenix Lake is not used for our drinking supply. How can we better utilize our existing capacity?

[Anita Fieldman]

I encoiurage everyone to read MMWD's survey being used to justify desalination, especially questions 41 through 47 at http://www.marinwater.org/documents/Public_Op...

Geez, Paul (AND MMWD Board), how stupid do you think we are? Calling the survey unbiased after slipping words like "scientific" in the pro-desal point and making comparisons to Australia if we don't build the desal plant is as ludicrous as it is horrifying. I will hope Marin residents, voters and the IJ Editorial Board can see the survey for what it is - lame, useless, and a waste of MMWD ratepayer money.

That said, thank you for the Conservation Summit - I hope it actually leads to more emphasis on conservation. Next time, skip the free breakfast - we probably could have installed several simple rainwater catchment systems for the cost.

And I would replace the words "aggressive conservation" so often used in the presentations with "responsible conservation." It changes the frame and I can tell by your survey you know how important the frame is.

[Jim]

Paul Helliker wrote:

And, in response to Michael Hartnett's comment about rainwater catchment systems, we have discussed that topic multiple times at MMWD Board meetings, some of which Mr. Hartnett attended. Rainwater catchment works well in climates like Austin, Texas, or Brisbane, Australia, where it rains throughout the year. In our climate, catching rainwater in the winter would not be useful for irrigation in the summer, unless one installed a large tank (e.g., 10,000 gallons or more). For such a system, and even for small systems of 50-100 gallons, the cost per gallon of water saved is quite expensive (contact the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network if you want verification of the costs of such systems.) So, if Mr. Hartnett wants to suggest that we use scarce ratepayer funds to pay for systems that cost three times that of desalination, it is his prerogative to do so, but MMWD Board members will likely be inclined to fund more cost-effective solutions.

But, rainwater catchment would be beneficial during the rainy season to use for toilet flushing, showers and other uses. The point is, there are ways to address the problem other than desal. Water recovery laws are changing and would benefit the community greatly in the replenishing of reserves and summer irrigation needs.

The community doesn't like desal and there are other options.

Also, I went to the Oakland water quality meeting on Wednesday and all their reports say rainfall is going to increase, not decrease, so my first question is, who started yelling the "sky is falling".

[Paul Helliker]

Anita - questions you may want to peruse further include #26 (77% believe we need new water supply),#29 (58% support desalination without any preceding information) and #33 (65% believe desalination should be part of the long-term supply).

Once questions 41-46 are asked, support goes up to 68% for desalination (Question 47). The reference to "scientific" relates to the monitoring data in the engineering report, which was an independent scientific assessment of desalination technology. So, yes, it was "scientific."

I'm glad you enjoyed the conservation summit. We received very positive comments about the quality and type of information that people heard about MMWD's conservation program.

And Jim, your statement that the community doesn't support desalination is contradicted not only by the poll, but also by the feedback we have received from a host of neighborhood, civic and business groups, which has been quite consistent with the poll results.

Catching and using rainwater during the winter for indoor uses is possible, but requires additional plumbing, backflow prevention devices, pumps, etc.(or a lot of lugging of water, which the vast majority of people don't want to do). All of this adds to the expense of the systems, making the cost per gallon higher than other options.

I'm not sure what water quality meeting took place in Oakland, but the only rainfall increases predicted in climate change studies are the change from snow to rainfall that is projected to accompany higher temperatures. Overall precipitation is projected to decline in Northern California (see the California Climate Change portal.)

[Jim]

Paul Helliker wrote:

Anita - questions you may want to peruse further include #26 (77% believe we need new water supply),#29 (58% support desalination without any preceding information) and #33 (65% believe desalination should be part of the long-term supply).
Once questions 41-46 are asked, support goes up to 68% for desalination (Question 47). The reference to "scientific" relates to the monitoring data in the engineering report, which was an independent scientific assessment of desalination technology. So, yes, it was "scientific."
I'm glad you enjoyed the conservation summit. We received very positive comments about the quality and type of information that people heard about MMWD's conservation program.
And Jim, your statement that the community doesn't support desalination is contradicted not only by the poll, but also by the feedback we have received from a host of neighborhood, civic and business groups, which has been quite consistent with the poll results.
Catching and using rainwater during the winter for indoor uses is possible, but requires additional plumbing, backflow prevention devices, pumps, etc.(or a lot of lugging of water, which the vast majority of people don't want to do). All of this adds to the expense of the systems, making the cost per gallon higher than other options.
I'm not sure what water quality meeting took place in Oakland, but the only rainfall increases predicted in climate change studies are the change from snow to rainfall that is projected to accompany higher temperatures. Overall precipitation is projected to decline in Northern California (see the California Climate Change portal.)

Paul, the meeting in Oakland was the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. I believe you recommended Steve Moore to serve on that board. The numbers they presented all supported increase in storms, rising sea levels (which included submerging the proposed land for the desal plant).

Looks like another example of pick and choose statistics to support a particular preference.

I have attended many meetings, including your meetings, the Marin Builders Exchange meeting, where I heard no endorsement from anyone representing the business community, in fact they declined to endorse desalination, and that I have on tape.

I think we have entered a "he said, she said" scenario. Time to put this to a public vote. I'm confident the people will filter out the hype and come to realize there is no option to sustainable living.

Where would people find the information about retrofitting for catchment and water reuse. Does MMWD have promotional brochures on these issues?

What would it take to stop salt water intrusion into our current waste water system. Will that only get worse with rising sea levels?

[Paola Bouley]

Paul Helliker wrote:

And, in response to Michael Hartnett's comment about rainwater catchment systems, we have discussed that topic multiple times at MMWD Board meetings, some of which Mr. Hartnett attended. Rainwater catchment works well in climates like Austin, Texas, or Brisbane, Australia, where it rains throughout the year. In our climate, catching rainwater in the winter would not be useful for irrigation in the summer, unless one installed a large tank (e.g., 10,000 gallons or more). For such a system, and even for small systems of 50-100 gallons, the cost per gallon of water saved is quite expensive (contact the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network if you want verification of the costs of such systems.) So, if Mr. Hartnett wants to suggest that we use scarce ratepayer funds to pay for systems that cost three times that of desalination, it is his prerogative to do so, but MMWD Board members will likely be inclined to fund more cost-effective solutions.

I want to clearly articulate SPAWN's position on this.

Roofwater harvesting systems can actually be very effective, even if they don't meet 100% of a landowner's landscape water needs. If they cut a landowner's water consumption by even 20, 30 or 50%, that is a saving and moving in the right direction. Every drop counts! These systems are most beneficial when viewed from a "stacking functions" perspective: 1) They help alleviate stormwater impacts from roof-runoff, 2) They provide a water-supply for irrigation, flushing toilets etc, 3) The provide an emergency, potable water supply, 4) They provide a water supply for fire suppression on the wildland-urban interface. These systems have been used effectively in more arid locations than CA.

Rainwater harvesting has captured the imagination of the public and we can all leverage this to accelerate conservation. They are serving to transform the relationship people have with water to one which savors each drop and uses water in relation to its availability. It is one “tool” in the conservation “toolbox” and we would be missing a huge opportunity to not pursue it.

As for the cost, contact SPAWN to learn about some of the innovative ways we worked to cut costs and leverage community in-kind for projects. They can be done less expensively and they do pay off in the long run, especially with the predicted rising costs of future energy.

I have 2,500-gallons and I have a vegetable garden and native landscaping...It’s mid-July and I have yet to turn the MMWD mainline on for my landscaping. At the rate I am going, I may not need to irrigate with MMWD until October.

[BGHOZ]

Marin Native wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree with your idea of individual catch system tanks being the answer. I am against desal. I don't like the idea of drinking bay water and I am not convinced it is necessary. I do appreciate the detailed comments by the GM, however I am still not convinced of the necessity.
I am not your typical anti-desal poster in that I don't think this is as black and white as some folks. I believe the MMWD board should be exploring all other sources of water in addition to conservation. I think we should be concerned that a drought could last three years leaving us dry.
I would like to know how much water can be gained by better use of the existing resevoirs. For instance, I believe Phoenix Lake is not used for our drinking supply. How can we better utilize our existing capacity?

Good question, you
are overlooking your own question about a three yr.drought..and that is why I am bringing these suggestions to forum. Yes, maybe in the future and I think it is a reasonable suggestion that individuals prepare, takes the burden off of the
whole, don't you think?