Experts discuss marine effects of pro...

Experts discuss marine effects of proposed desalination plant

There are 4 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Nov 10, 2010, titled Experts discuss marine effects of proposed desalination plant. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Residents who attended a desalination meeting at the Louden Nelson Community Center Tuesday learned about some of the studies that have been conducted to determine what effects the plant, if approved, would have on the marine environment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Here is my comment Ann

Las Vegas, NV

#1 Nov 10, 2010
"Ann Sansevero, a consultant with URS Corporation who will be preparing the environmental impact report, urged residents who have concerns about the project to attend one of two meetings scheduled for Dec. 8 where their comments will be formally recorded..."

GM Bill Kocher of SCMU and 20 year+ GM Ms. Laura Brown SqCWD are either flat out lying or in lala land....

Here's what they say...
"Meanwhile, officials at the Soquel Creek Water District -- which obtains the majority of its water supply from groundwater sources -- worry that depleted basins would allow seawater to flow into and destroy the aquifers."

This has already irretrievably occurred, Folks!

www.douglasdeitch.com

Once again, here's the truth from Ms. Brown in her ownn words from 1996 about our aquifers, Pajaro agbiz, and the effect of building a $120 million desal plant...
http://pogonip.org/WaterDocs/AptosTimes_96.pd...

"September 9-16, 2009

Letters to the Editor

Shock And Awe
I READ with great amazement, shock and awe the statement by Ms. Laura Brown, general manager of Soquel Creek Water District, and Mr. Bill Kocher, Santa Cruz water czar ("Conservation Not Enough," Letters, Sept. 2): "By supplementing groundwater supplies with desalination, the District will be able to limit groundwater pumping to within the sustainable yield and prevent seawater intrusion from contaminating the aquifers [plural]." This is disingenuous at the very best.

Apparently, Ms. Brown and Mr. Kocher should reread Ms. Brown's 1996 Aptos Times article (which can be found online at
http://pogonip.org/WaterDocs/AptosTimes_96.pd...
wherein Ms. Brown describes how one-third of Soquel Creek's water supply comes from wells in the same aquifer, the Aromas Red Sands, that Pajaro and the Farm Bureau uses around 90 percent of at around 200 percent overdraft to grow around 25 percent of this country's berries annually ... thereby permanently losing 15,000 acre feet of their shared supply to salt water intrusion each year for decades, exported in berries! And earning UC a cool $5 million a year in berry IP royalty payments, UC's fifth-biggest yearly revenue generator.

We would have to build around seven new 24/7 $100 million Santa Cruz desal plants yearly (before operations and maintenance) just to keep even, global warming or not. The late Marc Reisner, author of Cadillac Desert, said 12 years ago here that our situation in Soquel Creek and Pajaro was the worst in the world. By what type of 1984 doublethink can this be considered preventing "seawater intrusion from contaminating the aquifers"? With this Water Weltanschauung, Soquel Creek and Santa Cruz ratepayers better consider the distinct possibility of their being up "the" creek without a paddle or any water either. How tough that be, and where will Ms. Brown and Mr. Kocher be then retired to?

One statement in the letter is undeniably true, though: "Our local water supplies are not sustainable for the current population"--but only of berry plants, not humans, I'm afraid. For example, after its expansion, UCSC will use annually, in total, less water than does 200 acres of berries: 600 acre feet a year. That's why I call this a Water Berry Ponzi Scheme."

http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cru...
Reality Check

Alameda, CA

#2 Nov 10, 2010
"...identified the San Lorenzo River as the only location large and deep enough to accommodate the necessary system."

Why does it not surprise me that we would create a desal plant whose intake draws fresh water?
Progressaratzzi

Watsonville, CA

#3 Nov 11, 2010
Right - no impact in the "marine sanctuary". Seriously, dumping partially treated sewage and now salt brine.

Yet is used as an excuse to stop boats when all the real pollution is from runoff and sewage.
Skeptic88

Placerville, CA

#5 Nov 11, 2010
We need to be decreasing our energy use, not creating energy hogging new technologies like desal plants. And we need to comprehend the impact of population growth, which tends to erase any progress we make in resource conservation. Also this whole desal issue just distracts from the fact that here in the Pajaro Valley and all around the world industrial agriculture has been allowed to destroy aquifers for profit.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Holy Shlicht! Santa Merrida "Bend Over" Troll O... 10 hr So it seems 27
News Randall Philip Kane, founder of Catalyst Club, ... (Jul '09) 17 hr ella seneres 93
specialized bicycle company Problem Jan 14 JammedTrailBike 1
Review: Highland Meadows Apartments (Apr '11) Jan 12 Maribel 1,224
News Aptos man arrested for being 'prolific graffiti... (May '09) Jan 12 username 25
News To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes on... Jan 11 Nice start 1
News PVUSD cuts $5.5 million (Feb '10) Jan 7 quien sabe 80

Santa Cruz Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Santa Cruz Mortgages