Seawater Desalination

And the California Coastal Act

California Coastal Commission
March 2004












SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 2


[this page intentionally blank]
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 9
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT.............................................................................................................. 9
1.2 PRIMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 11
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................... 14
1.4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST ...... 15
TABLE 1: EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST........................ 15
TABLE 2: PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST ..................... 16
1.5 OTHER STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL DESALINATION INITIATIVES.................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: ELEMENTS OF COASTAL ACT REVIEW................................................................... 21
2.1 ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT.............................................................................. 21
2.2 KEY COASTAL ACT TERMS.................................................................................................. 23
2.2.1 FEASIBILITY, ALTERNATIVES, AND MITIGATION.................................................. 23
2.2.2 COASTAL-DEPENDENT AND COASTAL-RELATED...................................................... 27
CHAPTER 3: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF DESALINATION .................................... 31
3.1 DESALINATION METHODS AND PROCESSES......................................................................... 31
3.2 DESALINATION ECONOMICS AND ENERGY USE ................................................................... 33
TABLE 3: PLANNED COSTS OF SEVERAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DESALINATION PROPOSALS..... 37
CHAPTER 4: COASTAL ACT PUBLIC RESOURCE POLICIES RELATED TO DESALINATION......... 39
4.1 COASTAL RESOURCES AS PUBLIC RESOURCES..................................................................... 39
4.1.1 SEAWATER AS PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMONS........................................................... 39
4.1.2 COASTAL ACT CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF WATER SERVICES
............................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ON WATER SERVICES........ 48
4.3 COASTAL ACT PUBLIC RESOURCE POLICIES........................................................................ 54
4.3.1 GROWTH-INDUCEMENT .................................................................................................. 54
4.3.2 PRIORITY USES............................................................................................................... 59
4.3.3 PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION.................................................................................. 61
CHAPTER 5: COASTAL ACT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES RELATED TO DESALINATION........... 65
5.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT......................................................... 65
5.1.1 EFFECTS OF DESALINATION INTAKES ON MARINE BIOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............ 68
5.1.2 EFFECTS OF DESALINATION DISCHARGES ON MARINE BIOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..... 76
5.1.3 ISSUES RELATED TO CO-LOCATING DESALINATION FACILITIES AT COASTAL POWER PLANTS
............................................................................................................................................... 79
5.2 OTHER COASTAL ACT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES.............................................................. 84
5.2.1 SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE................................................................................. 84
5.2.2 HAZARDS AND EROSION.................................................................................................. 84
5.2.3 UPLAND HABITATS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (ESHAS)............ 85
5.2.4 VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES .................................................................................... 86
5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS........................................................................................................ 87
CHAPTER 6: OTHER REGULATIONS AND PERMITS ..................................................................... 89
6.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)....................................................... 89
TABLE 4: PERMITS/APPROVALS LIKELY REQUIRED FOR A COASTAL DESALINATION FACILITY..... 90
6.2 AGENCIES WITH J URISDICTION............................................................................................ 91
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................. 95
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................. 97
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 4

[this page intentionally blank]

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In view of evolving issues relating to adequacy of water supplies to meet the states projected
population growth, desalination will obviously be an important part of Californias water future.
The question is not whether, but rather how, where, when, by whom, and under what conditions
will desalination projects be designed, built, and operated.

There is growing interest and concern about seawater desalination along the California coast.
The interest is due in large part to recent technological developments that reduce the costs and
energy requirements of producing desalinated water. Additionally, many water agencies and
purveyors are interested in reducing their dependence on imported water supplies and view
desalination as providing a reliable and local source of water. The concerns about desalination
are due primarily to its potential to cause adverse effects and growth that are beyond the capacity
of Californias coastal resources.

There are currently about two dozen seawater desalination facilities being proposed along the
California coast, including some that would be the largest in the U.S. The state does not have a
great deal of recent experience or expertise in evaluating the environmental impacts or the public
resource issues associated with desalination, and this report is meant to identify many of the
elements that will likely be a part of these upcoming evaluations.

The California Coastal Commission will be involved in nearly all coastal desalination proposals,
either through planning, permitting, permit appeals, or other forms of review. This report from
Commission staff is meant to help with those reviews in several ways:

! It provides general information for the Commission, applicants, and the interested public
about the issues related to desalination along the California coast, and desalinations possible
effects on coastal resources and coastal uses;
! It describes the status of seawater desalination in California and the proposed facilities now
being planned;
! It identifies and discusses Coastal Act policies most likely to apply to proposed desalination
facilities; and,
! It identifies much of the information likely to be required during coastal development permit
review for proposed facilities.

Additionally, the report is based on several key points:

! It is meant to be informational only: The report does not create new regulations or
guidelines for reviewing proposed desalination facilities. Rather, it describes desalination
issues as they relate to existing Coastal Act policies, and discusses how these policies are
likely to apply to a proposal.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 6
! It is based on the need to provide case-by-case review: Because each proposed desalination
facility will have unique design and siting characteristics, each is likely to be subject to a
different set of Coastal Act policies and will likely conform to those policies in different
ways. This report, therefore, makes no overarching recommendations in support or
opposition to desalination. Some desalination proposals may be environmentally benign or
may even provide environmental benefits, while others may cause significant adverse
impacts. Determining whether a proposed project will conform to the Coastal Act will
therefore be done on a case-by-case basis.

! It is written in a precautionary tone: Many of the concerns and issues involved in large-
scale coastal desalination have not yet been tested in California, and much of the information
about desalination, when it is available, has not yet been compiled in a comprehensive and
useful way. As a result, much of this report is written in a precautionary tone. Some of the
facilities being proposed raise significant public policy and environmental issues, and the
consequences of some of those issues, such as the cumulative impacts of desalination on the
marine ecosystem or the implications of consumptive use of ocean water under international
trade agreements, are still emerging. It is therefore likely that upcoming reviews of proposed
facilities will require comprehensive, detailed, and specific analysis to ensure the facilities
meet applicable policies and allow the state to maintain and protect its coastal resources.

The report is also being issued as part of a larger statewide interest in determining the
implications of desalination to California. In 2004, the Department of Water Resources
convened a task force, pursuant to AB 2717, to identify the opportunities and constraints for
desalination to provide part of the states water supply, and to evaluate whether the state should
play a role in supporting desalination. This report incorporates the work of the task force, as
appropriate. It also incorporates many of the comments received during a ninety-day public
review period in the fall of 2004 on a draft version of this report so as to more fully reflect
concerns and issues related to desalination and Coastal Act policies.

INITIAL FINDINGS

Some of the key findings in this report include:

! Each proposed desalination facility will require case-by-case review: As stated above,
because each facility has unique design, siting, and operating characteristics, different
Coastal Act policies are likely to apply differently to each one. This will require case-by-
case review to determine Coastal Act conformity, adverse impacts, and the measures
necessary to avoid and mitigate for those impacts.

! Coastal Act policies do not suggest overall support of, or opposition to, desalination: The
Coastal Act allows many types of development to occur within the coastal zone, as long as
they conform to Coastal Act policies. Properly designed and operated desalination is one of
these types of development.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 7
! There may be differences in applying Coastal Act policies to public or private desalination
facilities: The Coastal Act is based in part on many of the coastal resources of California
being public resources, and the consumptive use of seawater by private entities will require
thorough evaluation and adequate assurances that public uses and values will be protected.
There are also numerous concerns about how various international trade agreements may
affect implementation of not only the Coastal Act, but many other state and local
environmental or public interest regulations.

! The most significant potential direct adverse environmental impact of seawater
desalination is likely to be on marine organisms: This impact is due primarily to the effects
of the seawater intake and discharge on nearby marine life; however, these effects can be
avoided or minimized through proper facility design, siting, and operation.

! The most significant potential indirect adverse impacts are likely to be those associated
with growth-inducement: Review of coastal desalination facilities will likely need to assess
whether the water supply provided by then new facilities comes with assurances that the
resulting growth will not exceed the capacity of coastal resources.

! Desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with coastal power plants will raise unique
issues and will need to be reviewed differently than facilities proposing to locate
independently: The largest proposed desalination facilities would be located at coastal power
plants that use ocean water for cooling. While this co-location may offer some advantages,
review of such facilities will need to consider the combined and incremental effects caused
by operating desalination facilities at coastal power plants using up to hundreds of millions of
gallons per day of seawater.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

Commission staff received numerous comments during public review of the draft version of this
report. The primary types of comments are summarized below:

Regarding the benefits of desalination: Commenters suggested the report describe more of the
benefits associated with desalination, such as reducing dependence on imported water supplies,
providing better quality drinking water, reducing pressure on other surface water sources, etc.

In response, the report now includes descriptions or acknowledgement of several additional
benefits that may result from desalination. It has kept its overall cautionary tone, however, in
recognition of the high degree of uncertainty about the effects of desalination on a variety of
coastal resources.

Regarding growth-inducement: Comments ranged from recognizing this as the most critical
aspect associated with desalinations effects on the coast to statements that the Coastal Act does
not allow the Coastal Commission to review growth-inducing aspects of development.

In response, the report retains and clarifies its discussion on growth-inducement as a part of
Coastal Act review, and also recognizes that some aspects of this issue are often addressed
through other local, regional, or state processes.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 8
Regarding desalination effects on water quality and marine biology: Comments ranged from
recognizing these as potentially significant impacts to recommending the Coastal Commission
defer evaluation of these issues to other agencies.

In response, the report retains and clarifies discussion of these issues and emphasizes the Coastal
Commissions role in maintaining, restoring, and enhancing coastal water quality and habitats.

Regarding co-locating desalination facilities with power plants: Commenters suggested the
report emphasize the benefits of co-locating with existing power plants using once-through
cooling. Other commenters expressed concerns that co-location could allow continuation and
expansion of environmentally harmful effects associated with once-through cooling system.

In response, the report includes a separate section on this issue and describes both the advantages
and concerns that may be brought about by co-location.

Regarding public, private, and international trade issues: Comments ranged from those
recognizing these issues as critical in the Commissions deliberations about desalination and
other issues that could affect coastal resources to those strongly suggesting these issues had no
place in this report.

In response, and with additional research, the report retains its discussion of these issues,
although with more recognition of the questions still needing to be answered than the answers
themselves.

Regarding coastal-dependency: Several commenters suggested for various reasons its
dependence on seawater, its similarity to other uses so designated, etc. that desalination should
be considered coastal-dependent for purposes of Coastal Act review.

In response, the report re-iterates the likelihood that portions of many desalination facilities may
be considered coastal-dependent and that other portions might not be. It also provides a more
detailed description of related policies and examples of other similar situations in which
distinctions were made between coastal-dependent and non-coastal-dependent portions of
proposed developments.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Chapter Sections:
1.1 Purpose of Report
1.2 Primary Findings and Recommendations
1.3 Report Organization
1.4 Existing and Proposed Desalination Facilities Along the California Coast
1.5 Other State, Federal, and Local Desalination Initiatives
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
For years, desalination has been considered as a possible source of fresh water for areas of
coastal California. Along many parts of the coast, the amount of available water has been one of
the primary limits on the rate of growth. However, despite the abundance of water in the Pacific
Ocean, desalinations relatively high costs and energy requirements have resulted in coastal areas
getting most of their water supply from other sources such as groundwater and imported water or
from water conservation measures.

Recent changes in desalination technology have reduced its costs to levels closer to those of
some of these other sources. Additionally, many are looking at desalination as a way to provide
a more reliable supply of water during the states recurring droughts and to reduce the
dependence of coastal communities on water imported from inland areas. Additional interest has
been generated by recently implemented state laws that require proposed developments to
provide more certainty of adequate water supplies during environmental or permit review. As a
result, desalination is currently being considered as a more feasible source of water in many
areas of the California coast than it had been previously.

Seawater desalination also raises concerns about how it will affect marine life, water quality,
public access, and other coastal resources. Numerous studies and reports identify the adverse
effects of pollution, overfishing, and other unsustainable practices on water quality and marine
life along the California coast, and poorly designed desalination facilities, particularly at the
scale of some proposed in California, could not only cause significant adverse impacts on their
own, but could add substantially to the cumulative detrimental effects already occurring.

Desalination facilities proposed along Californias coast will require review by the California
Coastal Commission to determine whether the proposal conforms to the policies of the California
Coastal Act. This report, by Coastal Commission staff, addresses many of the issues that are
likely to be considered during such a review, and is meant to serve a number of purposes:

! It provides information to the Coastal Commission, applicants, and the interested public
about many of the issues related to desalination along the California coast, especially as they
relate to the Coastal Act.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 10
! It describes much of the information and evaluation that will likely be needed as part of the
Coastal Commissions review of proposed facilities to determine whether the proposals
conform to Coastal Act policies.
! It summarizes the status of desalination along the coast and lists the known anticipated
facilities now being planned.

! It updates the Coastal Commissions 1993 report, Seawater Desalination in California, to
reflect changes in desalination technology, improved understanding of coastal resources, and
additional policy considerations of the Coastal Act. When the 1993 report was published, the
state was just coming out of a period of several years of low water supplies, and there were
about a dozen relatively small desalination facilities along the California coast, producing
relatively expensive water primarily for drought relief, emergency supply, or for use in areas
isolated from other water sources. Since that time, with increasing pressures on other
available sources of water and decreasing economic costs of desalination, facilities being
proposed would increase seawater desalination eighty-fold along the coast.

! It reflects some of the recent work done by two working groups looking at desalination in
California. One group, a state desalination task force convened by the California Department
of Water Resources, was formed pursuant to AB 2717 and was asked to identify the
opportunities and constraints for desalination in the state and determine what role, if any, the
state should play in furthering desalination technology. This group developed a number of
findings and recommendations, many of which are incorporated into this report. Another
group, convened by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary as part of the Sanctuarys
Management Plan Update, developed recommendations regarding desalination for the
Sanctuarys update of its Management Plan. While this latter groups efforts focused on
desalination within the Sanctuary boundary, much of its work is applicable to the entire
California coast.

! Finally, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30006.5, the report is meant to provide sound and
timely scientific recommendations to the Coastal Commission to use during deliberations on
significant issues related to coastal resources.

CAVEATS

Several important caveats should be noted regarding this report:

! Because the report evaluates desalination in general rather than reviews a specific proposal, it
is not meant to represent the definitive set of issues and concerns that would be addressed
during review of any particular proposal. Each review will likely raise unique Coastal Act
conformity issues based on the location, design, and operation of each proposed facility. The
report, however, does describe a fairly complete range of the more significant issues that may
be involved in reviewing any given proposed facility.

! The report is focused primarily on how proposed seawater desalination facilities are likely to
be evaluated for conformity to Coastal Act policies. It is not meant to identify all the other
issues that may come up during review under other regulations, such as local zoning
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 11
ordinances, health department requirements, or others, although many may be the same or
similar to those discussed herein.

! While the report mentions some of the broader issues involved in planning for state or
regional water supplies, such as discussing the role of imported water, conservation, or
elements that may be included in a comprehensive water portfolio, it is not meant to replace
the more detailed planning needed at the state, regional, or local level to fully evaluate the
mix of sources and uses for a communitys water supply.

! Finally, given the states limited experience with large-scale seawater desalination and the
many uncertainties about how such facilities may affect coastal resources, the report is
written in a cautionary tone. There is relatively little information available on many aspects
of desalination such as its effects on particular marine species or habitats, whether
monitoring requirements at existing facilities adequately characterize the effects the facilities
are having, and the potential cumulative impacts of water withdrawals and discharges from
multiple desalination facilities or other types of facilities in a waterbody and so, absent a
large body of research or scientific certainty, the report attempts to make it clear that review
of a proposed project may require significant information to provide the level of certainty
needed to determine whether a facility will conform to the Coastal Act.
1.2 PRIMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The report makes a number of findings and recommendations related to project review,
protection of coastal resources, and the applicability of various Coastal Act policies, including
the following:

GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The report neither supports nor opposes desalination. Desalination has been identified as an
important part of the states future water supply. The California Department of Water Resources
as well as a number of local or regional water agencies have identified desalination as providing
a portion of the water they expect to provide to the state over the next several decades. If
properly sited, designed, and operated, some desalination facilities could be operated in an
environmentally benign manner and conform to Coastal Act requirements, and may even result
in some environmental benefits, while other proposed facilities would likely cause significant
adverse effects and not conform to applicable regulations.

Desalination facilities will require case-by-case review. Because each proposed facility would
have a different design and location, each will also raise different issues of concern and likely be
subject to a different mix of Coastal Act policies. Therefore, the information provided in this
report recognizes that each desalination proposal will require case-by-case review. This
approach will allow each proposal to be reviewed based on the specific characteristics of the
proposed facility and the particular coastal resources of concern at specific sites, and will allow
necessary mitigation measures to be tailored to each. Although each facility will undergo case-
by-case review and a location-specific evaluation, this report is meant to provide sufficient
general information about the types of review and the level of detail likely to be required to
complete Coastal Commission review.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 12



PLANNING

A desalination facilitys most significant effect could be its potential for inducing growth.
The existing pressures on Californias coastal resources are substantial, even with the protections
provided by such measures as the Coastal Act and other laws. If desalination removes the limits
imposed on growth along the coast due to the current limited supply of water, the degradation of
coastal resources could increase beyond sustainable levels. Adequate, comprehensive review of
these issues will be a critical part of reviewing proposed facilities to ensure the California coast
remains a place of environmental value and public enjoyment.

Desalination proposals should be reviewed in the context of an overall water management
plan. A proposed desalination facility should not be reviewed in isolation it should be part of a
comprehensive water management approach that identifies other water sources, incorporates
conservation methods, and assesses alternative methods of providing a communitys water
supply. A comprehensive plan should identify and implement all opportunities for water
conservation and reclamation that would reduce impacts on coastal resources. As part of this
approach, Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) should incorporate and encourage use of conservation
and reclamation measures to reduce the need for new water projects. LCPs should also specify
the quantity of water supplies that will be needed for the planned levels of development.

There may be significant differences in determining whether public or private desalination
facilities conform to Coastal Act policies. The Coastal Act is based largely on coastal
resources being public resources. Private consumptive use of these resources will likely result in
a different type of review than public use. Water is often the limiting factor for potential
development projects and growth within a community. Because the form of ownership and
operation of a desalination facility may contribute to whether its water allocations are consistent
with the development priorities mandated in the Coastal Act or incorporated in a certified LCP,
the Commission should evaluate whether special or additional conditions may be necessary or
appropriate based on a proposed facilitys form of ownership.

The cumulative impacts of a proposed desalination projects should be thoroughly
evaluated during environmental review. Coastal Commission staff should work with the
applicant, other agencies, and the interested public to consider the potential cumulative impacts
of desalination projects. Among the important issues to address are the impacts of building a
number of small facilities versus a few larger ones, the cumulative impacts on growth from the
additional water supplied by new facilities, and the environmental effects of additional power
production needed to operate the facilities.

REVIEW PROCEDURES

There should be early coordination between project proponents and involved agencies.
The Coastal Commission staff should become involved in a desalination project proposal as
early as possible in the applicable planning processes, including but not limited to those
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 13
mandated under CEQA and/or NEPA, and those carried out by local or regional water supply
agencies.


FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATIONS

The most significant direct adverse environmental impacts of seawater desalination
facilities are likely to be their effects on marine organisms. Seawater desalination facilities
that draw water directly from the open ocean or estuaries entrain and kill many small marine
organisms, such as plankton, larvae, and fish eggs. In some cases, this impact could be
significant, especially with a large or poorly sited intake. However, there are several alternative
designs and mitigation measures that could completely avoid or substantially reduce this impact.
Subsurface intakes, such as beach wells or infiltration galleries, where feasible, have the
significant advantage of eliminating impingement and entrainment impacts. Applicants are
encouraged to use subsurface intakes whenever feasible, and where they will not cause
significant adverse impacts to either beach topography or potable groundwater supplies. Projects
proposing to use open water intakes should expect to provide information about their effects on
marine organisms as part of their permit applications.

Facilities should be designed to avoid or minimize the use of hazardous chemicals.
Applicants are encouraged to select technologies and processes that minimize or eliminate the
need for hazardous chemicals. This will reduce the disposal requirements for such substances,
lessen the impacts of potential spills or releases from the facility, and reduce discharges of
hazardous constituents into the ocean. Applicants should also select the least environmentally
damaging options for feedwater treatment and cleaning of plant components.

Facilities should incorporate any of several ways to avoid or minimize adverse impacts
associated with desalination discharges. Applicants should provide information about the
potential impacts to marine resources from the proposed discharges. This information may be
obtained from survey results, pre-operational monitoring, monitoring results from other
desalination plants, or other sources. The information will then be reviewed by the Coastal
Commission staff in consultation with the RWQCB with jurisdiction in the area where the
facility is proposing to locate. Applicants should also evaluate options for combining brine
discharges with discharges from a power plant or a sewage treatment plant. Combining the
desalination discharge with other discharges may be preferable to direct discharges of brine and
may result in fewer overall impacts, but this will require case-by-case review. When the brine
will be combined with other discharges, the applicant should clearly identify which party or
parties will be responsible for monitoring the discharges and for providing corrective measures
for any adverse impacts that occur.








SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 14



1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1 of this report provides a brief introduction, a description of existing and proposed
desalination facilities along the California coast, and some of the current local, state, and federal
initiatives on desalination. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the Coastal Act including its
background, some of its policies and definitions, and its review process and discusses how
some of these issues are likely to be incorporated into the review of proposed desalination
facilities. Chapter 3 follows with a description of the main methods used in desalination and a
discussion of desalination costs and energy requirements. Chapter 4 discusses the primary
public resource issues related to reviewing proposals for conformity to the Coastal Act, including
the Public Trust Doctrine, issues of public or private ownership, international trade, and several
specific Coastal Act policies. Chapter 5 discusses some environmental effects that desalination
may have on various coastal resources, in particular those associated with marine biology and
water quality. Chapter 6 provides a brief description of some other regulatory issues and the
local, state, or federal agencies likely to be involved in desalination review. Appendix A
includes a glossary of desalination-related terms. For ease of reading, many sections of the
report start with Main Points that are then discussed in greater detail within that section of the
report. In addition, many sections end with Whats Likely Needed During Review?, describing
information about a proposed project that may be needed during Coastal Act review.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 15
1.4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG
THE CALIFORNIA COAST
There are currently about a dozen existing desalination facilities along the California coast (see
Table 1) and at about two dozen facilities being considered (see Table 2). Comparing the two
tables gives a sense of the current high level of interest in desalination along the coast and the
scale of the changes being considered. Existing coastal desalination facilities are relatively
small, and in total, can produce up to a maximum of about 3300 acre-feet per year. The total
output of all the currently proposed coastal facilities, including some that would be the largest in
the country, would be about 260,000 acre-feet per year, which represents roughly a 80-fold
increase in production.

TABLE 1: EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE
CALIFORNIA COAST
Operator/Location/Purpose/
Public or Private:
Purpose/ Public or
Private:
Maximum
Capacity:
Status:
Chevron/ Gaviota - Industrial processing
- Private
410,000 gpd/
460 AF/yr.
Active
City of Morro Bay - Municipal/domestic
- Public
830,000 gpd/
929 AF/yr.
Intermittent
use
City of Santa Barbara - Municipal/domestic
- Public
N/A Inactive
Duke Energy/ Morro Bay Power
Plant
- Industrial processing
- Private
430,000 gpd/
482 AF/yr.
Not known
Duke Energy/ Moss Landing
Power Plant
- Industrial processing
- Private
480,000 gpd/
537 AF/yr.
Active
Marina Coast Water District - Municipal/domestic
- Public
300,000 gpd/
335 AF/yr.
Active
Monterey Bay Aquarium - Aquarium visitor use
- Non-profit
40,000 gpd/
45 AF/yr.
Active
PG&E/ Diablo Canyon - Industrial processing
- Private
576,000 gpd/
645 AF/yr.
Not known
Santa Catalina Island - Municipal/domestic
- Private
132,000 gpd/
148 AF/yr.
Not known
U.S. Navy/ Nicholas Island - Municipal/domestic
- Government
24,000 gpd/
27 AF/yr.
Not known
Various offshore oil & gas
platforms
- Platform uses
- Private
2,00030,000 gpd/
233 AF/yr.
Active
Total Production: ~ 3 million gallons per day /3300 acre-feet per year
Note: gpd =gallons per day, and AF/yr. =acre-feet per year. There are approximately 326,000
gallons in an acre-foot, which represents the amount of water it takes to cover an acre of land one
foot deep. Typically, a household will use one to two acre-feet per year.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 16

TABLE 2: PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE
CALIFORNIA COAST
Operator/ Location: Purpose, and public or
private:
Maximum
Capacity:
Status:
Cambria Community Services
District
- Municipal/ domestic
- Public
500,000 gpd/
560 AF/yr.
Planning
Ocean View Plaza/ Monterey - New development
- Private
5,000 gpd/
6 AF/yr.
Planning
Carmel Area Wastewater District - Municipal/ domestic
- Public
Not known Not known
City of San Buenaventura - Municipal/ domestic
- Public
Not known Not known
City of Sand City - Municipal/ domestic
- Public
27,000 gpd/
30 AF/yr.
Planning
City of Santa Cruz - Municipal/ domestic
- Public
2.5 million gpd/
2800 AF/yr.
Planning
East-West Ranch/ Cambria - New development
- Private
Not known Withdrawn
Marina Coast Water District/
Fort Ord
- Municipal/ domestic
- Public
2.68 million gpd/
3000 AF/yr.
Planning
Long Beach - Research
- Public
300,000 gpd/
335 AF/yr.
Design phase
Long Beach - Municipal/ domestic
- Public
10 million gpd/
11,000 AF/yr.
Planning
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and
Power
- Municipal/ domestic
- Public
10 million gpd/
11,000 AF/yr.
Planning
Monterey Bay Shores - New development
- Private
20,000 gpd/
22 AF/yr.
Not known
Monterey Peninsula Water
Mgmt. District / Sand City
- Municipal/domestic
- Public
7.5 million gpd/
8,400 AF/yr.
Planning
Cal-Am/Moss Landing Power
Plant
- Municipal/domestic 9 million gpd/
10,000 AF/yr.
Planning
Municipal Water District of
Orange County / Dana Point
- Municipal/domestic
- Public
27 million gpd/
30,000 AF/yr.
Planning
Poseidon Resources /
Huntington Beach
- Various
- Private
50 million gpd/
55,000 AF/yr.
Draft EIR
completed
San Diego County Water
Authority / San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station
- Municipal/domestic
- Public
TBD Planning
San Diego County Water
Authority / South County
- Municipal/domestic
- Public

50 million gpd/
55,000 AF/yr.
Planning
San Diego County Water
Authority & Poseidon Resources
/Carlsbad
- Municipal/domestic
- Public/private
50 million gpd/
55,000 AF/yr.
Planning
U.S. Navy / San Diego - Municipal/domestic
- Government
700,000 gpd/
780 AF/yr.
Not known
West Basin Municipal Water
District
- Municipal/domestic
- Public
20 million gpd/
22,000 AF/yr.
Planning
Total Proposed Production: ~ 240 million gallons per day / 260,000 AF/yr.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 17
1.5 OTHER STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL DESALINATION
INITIATIVES
There are a number of efforts currently underway in California to study, promote, or anticipate
the need for additional water supplies using desalination or other methods. Some of the main
ones are listed below.

STATE

California Department of Water Resources (DWR): DWR is one of the lead agencies in the
state for developing and allocating water resources. Its current work includes the following:

! Update of the California Water Plan for 2003: The draft Plan identifies the need for the
state to have a balanced and integrated water portfolio and includes seawater desalination as
one of over twenty sources for the states water supply (along with surface flows, reclaimed
water, groundwater, etc.). The Plan considers it moderately likely that seawater desalination
could provide up to 200,000 acre-feet per year of the states water demand by 2030.

! Desalination Task Force (per Assembly Bill 2717): This task force was charged with
identifying the opportunities and constraints for desalination in providing some of the states
water supply, and to examine whether the state should play a role in furthering the use of
desalination. In October 2003, the Task Force completed its work and published its findings
and recommendations (see http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/desal.cfm). Selected
findings and recommendations have been incorporated into relevant sections of this report.
As a follow-up to the work of the Task Force, DWR will continue to coordinate much of the
desalination research and information available at the state level.

California Energy Commission:

! Review of entrainment studies: The CEC is compiling information about existing studies
that have been used to evaluate the effects of coastal power plants on marine organisms. The
compilation is meant in part to identify the adequacy and applicability of these studies to
current environmental conditions near the plants, and to identify where updated studies are
needed. Many of the reports findings will likely be applicable to desalination facilities
proposing to co-locate at coastal power plants.

! Energy demand: Energy Commission staff is compiling data to help determine how the
energy demand of proposed desalination facilities will affect the states power grid.

FEDERAL

Bureau of Reclamation: The Bureau has several research initiatives underway. It is working
with Sandia National Laboratories on a Desalination and Water Purification Technology
Roadmap, primarily to identify and prioritize areas where technological efficiencies in
desalination might be most effective. It is also coordinating several of the desalination research
initiatives under Water 2025, a federal program meant to manage water resources in the
Western U.S. The Bureau is also working with the City of Long Beach Water Department to
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 18
develop a nanofiltration desalination technology which is anticipated to be much more energy-
efficient than other types of reverse-osmosis membrane technology. The two agencies are
developing a pilot project to test various techniques and types of equipment. The project would
be located at the Haynes Generating Station in Long Beach.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary: The Sanctuary is updating its Management Plan
and will consider including recommendations about desalination facilities that may be proposed
within Sanctuary boundaries. The recommendations were developed by a desalination
workgroup representing a number of interests and stakeholders in the Monterey Bay area, were
evaluated by both the Sanctuary Advisory Group and the public during review of the Draft
Management Plan during the summer and fall of 2003, and will be considered for adoption as
part of the final Management Plan sometime in 2004. The workgroups recommendations
include the following:
! Develop a regional planning program for desalination.
! Develop facility siting guidelines, including identifying preferred conditions and habitats,
areas that should be avoided, etc.
! Define standards for entrainment and impingement caused by desalination facilities and
limits for brine discharges to Sanctuary waters.
! Determine which water quality models are suitable for determining discharge plumes for
desalination outfalls.
! Identify the minimum required information for permit applications.
! Develop a regional monitoring program to determine cumulative impacts of multiple
desalination facilities.
! Develop an education and outreach program for desalination issues.
! Track and evaluate emerging desalination activity and technology and outside the Sanctuary.

Several of these recommendations have been incorporated into applicable sections of this report.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL

A number of local or regional water districts are also considering desalination programs to
provide a portion of their water supplies. Although desalination is still more expensive than
existing supplies, there is a growing interest by water supply agencies to diversify their water
sources and to decrease their reliance on imported water. Major efforts include:

! Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California: MWD is considering
proposals to build and operate coastal desalination facilities within its Southern California
service area. To further this goal, MWD has offered to subsidize desalination production at
the rate of $250 per acre-foot for up to 25 years. At this time, five of the proposals shown in
Table 2 are being considered:
o Long Beach Water Department
o Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
o Municipal Water District of Orange County
o San Diego County Water Authority/Poseidon Resources
o West Basin Municipal Water District

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 19
The purposes of this program include reducing Southern Californias dependence on
imported water supplies, enhancing the portfolio of supplies available to the area, and
providing an incentive to develop desalination as an additional water source in Southern
California.

! Long Beach Water Department (LBWD): The Department recently started construction of
a desalination test facility that will evaluate several desalination techniques, including one
patented by the Department that may provide greater efficiencies and lower energy use.

! San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA): The SDCWA recently circulated a Draft
EIR for its Regional Water Facilities Master Plan that identified development of large-scale
desalination facilities (up to 100,000 acre-feet per year) as its preferred alternative to provide
for regional growth through 2030.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 20

[this page intentionally blank]

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 21
CHAPTER 2: ELEMENTS OF COASTAL ACT REVIEW

Chapter Sections:
2.1 About the California Coastal Act
2.2 Key Coastal Act Terms (Feasibility, Alternatives, Mitigation, Coastal-Dependent,
and Coastal-Related)

Most, if not all, seawater desalination facilities will require review for conformity to the Coastal
Act due to their proposed use of seawater and their location on or near the coast. This chapter
provides an overview of the Coastal Act and some of the key aspects of the Act that will likely
apply to proposed desalination facilities during these reviews. It summarizes some of the Acts
history and goals, its jurisdictional boundaries, and some key terms used in Coastal Act review,
including feasibility, alternatives analysis, mitigation, and coastal-dependency. More
information about each of these issues is available at the Coastal Commissions web site, at:
www.coastal.ca.gov.
2.1 ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
In 1976, the state Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act to provide long-term protection
of the states coastline. The Act grew out of a 1972 citizens initiative (Proposition 20) passed to
ensure protection of the California coast. The Act includes a number of policies related to:

! Protection and expansion of public access to the shoreline;
! Protection, enhancement, and restoration of important habitats and biological communities;
! Protection of areas of the coast used for priority purposes, such as coastal recreation, coastal
agriculture, and others;
! Preventing sprawl;
! Providing public education about the coast and coastal issues; and,
! Establishing local controls for coastal development.

The Coastal Act is implemented through a combination of state and local jurisdictions within the
states Coastal Zone.

COASTAL ZONE

The Coastal Act applies within the states Coastal Zone, which encompasses an area along the
states entire 1100-mile coastline, starting three miles offshore and extending inland at distances
ranging from several blocks to about five miles from the ocean
1
. Additionally, the Coastal
Commission has jurisdiction in matters requiring federal permits or approvals in the federal
waters beyond the three-mile boundary of state waters.



1
Note: The Coastal Commissions jurisdiction does not extend into San Francisco Bay. Areas in and around the
Bay inside the Golden Gate are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 22
COASTAL COMMISSION

The Coastal Commission consists of twelve voting members, with four each appointed by the
Governor, the head of the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly, and four
non-voting members (the Secretaries of the Resources Agency and the Business and
Transportation and Housing Agency, the Chair of the State Lands Commission, and the Director
of the Trade and Commerce Agency). As explained below, the Commission has permit authority
in those parts of the Coastal Zone without a certified Local Coastal Program, and has the ability
to review and determine appeals of some local decisions.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS

Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), when adopted by local governments and certified by the
Commission establish development controls for areas of local jurisdictions within the coastal
zone. The Coastal Commission retains its permit jurisdiction, however, in coastal waters and
tidelands and for certain types of facilities, including major public works projects. The
Commission also hears appeals of local decisions in areas of an LCP designated as within the
Commissions appeal jurisdiction.

PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The Coastal Act requires that many development activities and uses within the Coastal Zone
obtain a permit. The types of development requiring a permit are defined in Coastal Act Section
30106:

"Development" means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous,
liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any
materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to,
subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the
Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the
land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public
agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access
thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure,
including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or
harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and
timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted
pursuant to the provisions of the Zberg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing
with Section 4511).

As used in this section, "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe,
flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and
distribution line.




SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 23

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS

Reviewing a proposed project for conformity to Coastal Act requirements may encompass a
wide range of issues, depending on the type of proposal, its location, and its potential to affect
coastal resources. A permit review commonly addresses issues such as public access,
environmental effects, priority coastal uses, visual resources, and others.
2.2 KEY COASTAL ACT TERMS
This section of the report describes several key terms used in the Coastal Act that will likely
apply during review of a proposed desalination facility. How these terms are applied could
determine whether a proposal is approved and how it might be sited, designed, or operated. This
section first discusses three general terms feasibility, alternatives and mitigation and
how they may be used in Coastal Act review. The report next describes two terms specific to the
Coastal Act coastal-dependency and coastal-related, and how they may affect the review
of proposed desalination facilities.

2.2.1 FEASIBILITY, ALTERNATIVES, AND MITIGATION

Main Point:
! Many Coastal Act policies applicable to desalination facilities require incorporating
feasible alternatives and mitigation measures into project design and operation.

The three terms above are important in determining the extent of review under the Coastal Act.
A key element in many decisions for proposed projects requiring Coastal Act permits is how
well the design and siting incorporate considerations of feasibility, alternatives, and mitigation
into the proposal.

FEASIBILITY

Feasible is defined in both the Coastal Act (at Section 30108) and in CEQA as capable of
being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. The Coastal Act includes
two main uses of feasibility first, as it relates to project alternatives, and next, as it relates to
mitigation measures. Primary examples include:

From Section 30230 (Marine Resources): Marine resources shall be maintained,
enhanced, and where feasible, restored.

From Section 30231 (Biological Productivity and Water Quality): The biological
productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes
appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection
of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored




SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 24
From Section 30233(a) (Diking, Filling, or Dredging): The diking, filling, or dredging
of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance
with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have
been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects

From Section 30251 (Scenic and Visual Resources): Permitted development shall be
sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to
minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the
character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual
quality in visually degraded areas.

From Section 30260 (Coastal-dependent Industrial Facilities): where new or
expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated
consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted if (1)
alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do
otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental
effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

From Section 30235 (Shoreline Construction): Existing marine structures causing
water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out
or upgraded where feasible.

It is also included as part of one of the Acts goals, in Section 30001.5: to protect, maintain, and
where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its
natural and artificial resources.

Coastal Act review may consider at least four distinct feasibility factors, each of which can be
addressed separately, but which also must be brought together when determining whether a
proposed alternative or mitigation measure is feasible. The four aspects are:

! Environmental factors: refers to selecting mitigation measures that can successfully respond
to the environmental impact being addressed, that have a strong likelihood of success, and
that do not cause other undesirable environmental impacts.

! Technological factors: refers to the engineering and operational ability to implement an
alternative or mitigation measure. For desalination, an example may be to consider treating
water using ultraviolet light rather than chemicals. The end result may be the same water
treated to a desirable level but the method using ultraviolet light would result in fewer
environmental impacts. This aspect of feasibility may also be applied when considering
combined benefits for example, a facility near the ocean may be required to put up screens
or panels to reduce its visual impacts, and those panels may also result in lower maintenance
costs at the facility due to reduced exposure to salt spray or wind.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 25
! Social factors: refers primarily to the publics acceptance or non-acceptance of certain
measures. An example of social feasibility related to desalination is the potential to
desalinate treated wastewater instead of seawater. While this alternative is feasible in many
ways it can be done technologically, it is less expensive than desalting seawater, and it may
result in fewer environmental impacts due to discharging the waste in the ocean it is also
viewed by many members of the public as less desirable. Part of the consideration in
reviewing social feasibility may be to determine what effort it would take to have some
measures could gain public acceptance.

! Economic factors: generally includes determining the environmental impacts of a proposal
along with the economic costs of mitigating those impacts through alternatives, avoidance,
minimization, or other means. The review may also compare the mitigation costs with the
overall project costs to determine whether mitigation costs represent a reasonable proportion
of the project costs. Two aspects of desalination its relatively high capital and operating
costs, and its potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts could make
extensive mitigation measures both necessary and feasible. For example, a project with
significant environmental impacts and capital costs of $200 million would spend only five
percent of that amount to produce $10 million worth of mitigation measures. In some cases,
economic feasibility may also include determining the opportunity costs gained or lost by
using a coastal site for one activity rather than another. This is generally an element of the
Coastal Act policies related to priority uses, but may also be included in feasibility in some
instances. Economic factors may also come into play in combination with the others for
example, in determining that it is both technically and economically feasible to use a less
hazardous membrane cleaning method at a facility. [See also Chapter 3.2 for more detailed
discussion of how costs may be incorporated into Coastal Act review.]

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

Coastal Act review generally evaluates a proposed project to determine whether there are
alternative versions of the project that may be less environmentally harmful. Not only are
alternatives and mitigation measures required to be feasible, but for some Coastal Act policies,
all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures must be implemented
2
. Review of a
desalination proposal, therefore, will likely require an alternatives analysis to identify whether
there are other feasible alternatives that better conform to Coastal Act requirements, and an
assessment of mitigation measures available to avoid or reduce its impacts.




2
Mitigation measures are generally considered in sequence based on their effectiveness in avoiding or alleviating an
impact. The mitigation sequence, as defined in CEQA Section 15370, consists of:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
For purposes of this report, the term minimize is defined as to reduce to the smallest possible level.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 26
Some examples of possible alternatives and mitigation measures to be considered include:

! Conservation: This could include incentive-based or voluntary measures, ranging from
urging landowners to use drought-resistant native plants to regulatory requirements, such as
requiring new developments to use only low-flow water fixtures. Many conservation
measures provide a dual advantage, in that not only are they effective in reducing water
demand but often cheaper than providing additional water. A November 2003 report by the
Pacific Institute states that California could increase its urban water supplies by 85% by
using available and cost-effective measures, such as installing low-flow fixtures, timers, and
other devices
3
. Many California communities have already implemented these measures, and
are part of a comprehensive local or regional strategy to reduce water demand. The state
Desalination Task Force recognized this when it included as one of its recommendations:

Include desalination, where economically and environmentally appropriate, as an
element of a balanced water supply portfolio, which also includes conservation and
water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.

! Using reclaimed or recycled water: This will likely depend on the availability of nearby
sources, the infrastructure needs to make these sources available to end users, the degree of
certainty that those sources will be available when needed, and other similar factors.

! Reallocating existing supplies: This could include a number of approaches, such as retiring
existing water rights or assigning those rights to be used for various conservation purposes
(e.g., fish flows, instream values, etc.).

! Market-based measures: This could include measures such as trading water rights, using a
rate structure that charges different amounts for different sources of water or for water use
during different times of day.

Additional alternatives and mitigation measures are discussed in other sections of this report as
they apply to particular topics.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Evaluation of alternatives and mitigation measures considered and how those were
determined to be feasible or infeasible: As part of a desalination permit application, an
applicant should be prepared to describe and evaluate the existing conservation measures being
implemented in a proposed service area, whether there are comprehensive conservation plans or
water use reduction plans in place, the effectiveness of such measures to reduce overall water
consumption, and additional feasible measures that could reduce impacts associated with a
constructing or operating a desalination facility. In many areas, this will likely require tying the
proposed desalination facility to adopted local or regional water management plans, growth
projections, local coastal programs, and other planning documents.

3
Gleick, Dr. Peter, Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California, November
2003.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 27

The application will also likely need to describe what considerations were used to determine
whether particular designs, locations, and mitigation measures were determined to be feasible or
infeasible. The most documentation should probably be provided for those aspects of a proposed
project that would have the greatest effect on avoiding or reducing adverse impacts.


2.2.2 COASTAL-DEPENDENT AND COASTAL-RELATED

Main Points:
! The Coastal Act allows many types of development in the coastal zone, and recognizes that
some uses are coastal-dependent in that they require a site on or immediately adjacent to
the ocean. The Act also defines coastal-related uses as being those that depend on
coastal-dependent uses.
! Desalination, in and of itself, is not coastal-dependent.
! While desalination processing facilities are not likely to be considered coastal-
dependent, their associated pipelines may be. If the pipelines for a desalination facility
using seawater are considered coastal-dependent, the associated processing facility
would be considered coastal-related.

The Coastal Act includes policies that acknowledge the limited amount of coastal land in
California, the need for certain activities to be located on the coast, and the publics interest in
having land available for those activities and uses. One of the primary determinations to be
made during review of many projects proposed to be sited in or next to the ocean is whether they
are coastal-dependent or coastal-related. Section 30101 of the Coastal Act defines a
coastal-dependent development or use as any development or use which requires a site on, or
adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all, and Section 30001.2 further describes coastal-
dependent developments as including ports and commercial fishing facilities, offshore
petroleum and gas development, and liquefied natural gas facilities
4
. Section 30101.3 of the
Act defines a coastal-related development as any use that is dependent on a coastal-dependent
development or use.

The issue of coastal-dependency is not a concern within the entire width of the coastal zone,
only for those developments proposing to locate on or immediately adjacent to the ocean. The
issue of coastal-dependency is generally not an issue for projects proposed to be located at
some distance inland from the ocean but still within the Coastal Zone for example, on the
landward side of a coastal highway or on a parcel not bordering coastal waters.






4
This section further distinguishes between coastal-dependent facilities and other facilities such as electrical
generating facilities and refineries, which it recognizes may be necessary to locate in the Coastal Zone, although not
necessarily on or adjacent to the ocean.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 28
IS DESALINATION COASTAL-DEPENDENT?

While a facility dependent on seawater may, at first glance, appear to fit this definition,
desalination, in and of itself, is not necessarily a coastal-dependent development or use. Many
desalination facilities are located at inland locations where the source water is brackish water,
groundwater, reclaimed water, or similar sources other than seawater. Similarly, providing a
water supply is not necessarily a coastal-dependent use, as most potable water is provided from
sources other than seawater. Even for facilities using seawater, the actual processing of that
water does not depend on being in or adjacent to the ocean.

While a desalination facility itself might not be coastal-dependent, the pipelines for getting
seawater to and from the facility may be. The desalination processing facility may only need to
be located close enough to the water to feasibly pump the source water inland from the shoreline.
For many proposals, this may require no more than being located across the street from the ocean
rather than right on the ocean.

In some cases, the pipelines, too, might be found to not be coastal-dependent if, for example,
the facility can get its source water from wells located near, but not directly on the shoreline
rather than from open intakes in the ocean.



WHY IS COASTAL-DEPENDENCYIMPORTANT?

Whether all or part of a proposal is coastal-dependent is important in several ways:

! Priority uses: Recognizing the limited amount of coastal land in the state, the Coastal Act
includes several policies that prioritize coastal-dependent development for coastal areas.
Section 30255, for example, states that coastal-dependent development has priority over
other development on or near the shoreline and that it should be within reasonable proximity
of the coastal-dependent uses it supports. [These priority uses are discussed further in
Chapter 4.3.2.]

Example of a development considered partially coastal-dependent and partially
coastal-related : In a decision on the Las Flores Canyon oil and gas processing facility in
Santa Barbara County, the Commission found that the pipelines providing oil and gas from
offshore oil platforms were considered coastal-dependent, but that the facility used to
process the oil and gas was not coastal-dependent. However, because the processing
facility was dependent on the use of those coastal-dependent pipelines, it was considered
coastal-related. This allowed project elements needing to be sited on or adjacent to the
water to be sited there and resulted in other parts of the development being located some
distance away from the shore.

The Commission has made similar determinations in several instances that aquaculture
dependent on seawater is not necessarily coastal-dependent, since it, too, can be located at
some distance inland from the shoreline, although the water supply lines may be considered
coastal-dependent.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 29
! Placing fill: To place fill in coastal waters, a proposed development must fall within one of
the eight categories listed under Coastal Act section 30233(a)
5
. J ust one of these eight
categories (Category 1 port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities) is likely to
apply to desalination, but only for the parts of the facility that have been determined to be
coastal-dependent (e.g., the intake and outfall pipelines). Further, the fill allowed under this
policy is subject to two additional measures there must be no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative, and feasible mitigation measures must minimize adverse
environmental effects.

Unless designed and operated to avoid impacts, seawater intakes and outfalls are likely to
cause adverse effects to coastal resources, primarily due to entraining marine organisms
(see Chapter 5.1.1 of this report) and due to the highly saline discharge back to the ocean (see
Chapter 5.1.2.). Therefore, the review for proposed pipelines considered coastal-
dependent will need to determine whether there are feasible alternatives, including other
locations, water sources, or methods such as beach wells, infiltration galleries or other types
of subsurface intakes or outfalls, as well as existing intakes and outfalls, that are less
environmentally damaging.






5
Section 30233(a): The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be
permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize
adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(l) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins,
vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.
(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland,
identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if,
in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained
as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing
space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed
25 percent of the degraded wetland.
(4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating
facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and
recreational opportunities.
(5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers
and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(7) Restoration purposes.
(8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities.

Note: Category 5 of this policy, which includes incidental public services has generally been intepreted by the
Commission to include only temporary impacts, such as construction- or maintenance-related activities. The
Commission has generally not interpreted this section to allow ongoing impacts that might be associated with an
open intake, such as entrainment or impingement of marine species.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 30
! Proposals that dont fully meet applicable Coastal Act policies: Section 30260 of the Act
recognizes that some facilities that are coastal-dependent might not conform to all
applicable policies of the Coastal Act:

Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within
existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with
this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities
cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may
nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if
(1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do
otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects
are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

This section, therefore, provides that coastal-dependent industrial facilities not consistent
with other applicable policies of the Coastal Act may be permitted if the Commission finds
that they meet a three-part test:

o Are alternative locations infeasible or more environmentally damaging?;
o Would doing otherwise adversely affect the public welfare?; and,
o Are adverse environmental effects mitigated to the maximum extent feasible?

Similar to the tests described above in Section 30233(a) for proposals involving placing fill, the
review of desalination facilities or pipelines considered coastal-dependent will need to
evaluate whether there are other feasible or less environmentally damaging locations and
determine what measures are needed to mitigate adverse environmental effects to the maximum
extent feasible. Again, this review is likely to include an evaluation of whether the facility can
be located and operated to avoid entraining and impinging marine organisms and whether the
outfall can be designed to avoid or minimize harmful discharges to the ocean.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 31
CHAPTER 3: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF
DESALINATION

Chapter Sections:
3.1 Desalination Methods and Processes
3.2 Desalination Economics and Energy Use

Desalination refers to any of several methods that remove dissolved salts and other chemicals
from water. Desalination is most well known as a way to treat seawater to provide drinking
water, but it is also used to treat sources of water other than seawater, including brackish
groundwater, recycled or reclaimed wastewater, agricultural runoff water, and others
6
. It can
provide different levels of treatment to allow a source water to be used for drinking, industrial
processes, agricultural uses, or other uses that may allow for a particular concentration of
dissolved solids and other materials in the water.

The desalination process generally involves drawing in source water (e.g., brackish or salt water)
and separating it into two streams a stream of desalted water that contains a minimal
concentration of dissolved salts and minerals (the product water), and a stream of liquid
containing the residual dissolved solids, including salts and other minerals and compounds.
Depending on which desalination method is used, every 100 gallons of seawater can produce 15
to 50 gallons of potable water and discharge 50 to 85 gallons of effluent containing higher
concentrations of the removed solids
7
.
3.1 DESALINATION METHODS AND PROCESSES
There are a number of desalination methods, including reverse osmosis, distillation,
electrodialysis, and vacuum freezing. Reverse osmosis and distillation represent the
predominant technologies currently being used around the world, and those are the two methods
briefly described below. Most of the facilities being proposed along the California coast would
use reverse osmosis methods, and this report focuses, for the most part, on that method.

DISTILLATION

This process requires the intake water to be heated to produce a vapor, which is then condensed
to produce water with a low concentration of dissolved salt and other minerals. This method
essentially mimics the hydrological cycle that occurs in nature. The most common methods of
distillation include multistage flash (MSF), multiple effect distillation (MED), and vapor
compression. Distillation plants generally require less pretreatment of feedwater than is

6
Brackish water has a salt content of 5 to 20 parts per thousand (ppt), while seawater has salt content of over 20
ppt. The salt content of seawater along the California coast averages from about 32 to 34 ppt.

7
In this report, the concentrated solution of salts and other constituents remaining after potable water is extracted
from seawater is referred to as desalination discharge. Other documents refer to it as brine, desalination
concentrate, seawater concentrate effluent, etc. For some facilities, the discharge may be only brine which is
defined as water with a high concentration of salts; in others, the discharge may contain concentrations of materials
other than salt.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 32
necessary in reverse osmosis, and they can generally use feedwater of lower quality. Distillation
plants also do not need to shut down production for cleaning or replacement of equipment as
often as reverse osmosis plants, and they do not generate waste from backwash of pretreatment
filters. The most significant disadvantage of distillation is that it is extremely energy intensive,
which typically limits its use to areas where energy costs are not as critical an issue. These
facilities have most commonly been used in the Middle East. Scaling and corrosion of
distillation plants are the major maintenance concerns, due to the exposure of the unprotected
evaporator components to corrosive feedwater.

REVERSE OSMOSIS

This process involves pumping feedwater at high pressure through semi-permeable membranes
to separate salt and other minerals from the water. The pores in the membrane are large enough
to allow water molecules to pass through, yet are too small to allow the passage of salt and other
minerals. Reverse osmosis facilities generally involves four separate processes: pretreatment,
pressurization, membrane separation, and post-treatment stabilization. Both physical and
chemical pretreatment can be used to remove suspended particles from the source water to keep
the membrane surfaces clean and to treat the water to prevent growth of microbes on the
membranes. The feedwater is then pressurized to about 800-1000 pounds per square inch (psi), a
process that results in most of the energy demand for the reverse osmosis desalination method.
The pressurized feedwater is then forced through the reverse osmosis membrane. Product water
quality is sometimes improved by passing the water through a second set of membranes. Once
the feed water is separated into two streams, the product water is treated to meet drinking water
requirements, and then to the water distribution or storage system. Many reverse osmosis
facilities are built using modular components that allow production to be expanded relatively
easily. Many are built with multiple treatment trains that allows for some, but not all,
production to be curtailed during cleaning or maintenance or during times of less demand. Some
facilities include systems that separate most of the suspended solids and treatment chemicals
from the waste stream so they can be sent separately to a wastewater treatment facility or
dewatered and shipped to a landfill.

Reverse osmosis has several advantages over distillation, including:

! Less energy required;
! Its discharge has lower thermal impacts since the feedwater does not have to be heated;
! Fewer corrosion problems;
! Higher recovery rates up to about 50% for seawater; and,
! Less surface area than distillation plants for the same amount of water production.

Reverse osmosis also has several disadvantages:

! It is generally more sensitive to poor water quality, resulting in the need to shut down
facilities during severe storms or periods of high runoff when there are increased amounts of
suspended particulates in the feedwater.
! It usually requires more frequent cleaning and maintenance, often using various chemicals
and cleaning agents, and often requiring full or partial shutdowns during cleaning.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 33
! The membranes are sensitive to fouling due to bacterial contamination or other causes, which
may require more frequent replacement and result in higher costs.
! It requires more extensive pretreatment, often with the use of biocides, coagulants, and other
compounds.
! The process and its use of cleaning agents generate wastes that may include toxic chemicals,
metals, and other constituents that are either discharged to surface waters or are separated
and sent to a wastewater treatment facility or landfill.
3.2 DESALINATION ECONOMICS AND ENERGY USE

Main Points:
! It is difficult to determine the full range of costs and benefits of any water supply,
including desalination.
! For water purveyors, one advantage to coastal desalination facilities is that, from an
economic standpoint, seawater is considered free.
! Energy costs are the most expensive part of the desalination process.
! Desalination remains more expensive than other water sources, but its higher price is seen
by some as a premium paid for a local and more reliable water supply.
! Coastal Act review includes consideration of a proposed developments energy
consumption and requires energy use to be minimized.
! Coastal Act review includes consideration of costs associated with a project to assess
feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to determine the full economic cost of any source of water. Providing water
supplies generally require both relatively direct and easily determined economic outlays such
as the capital cost to construct treatment plants and pipelines, the costs of operating and
maintaining a water supply system, and the cost of electricity needed to pump water from one
location to another as well as indirect and non-monetary costs that are usually more difficult to
determine such as the environmental costs associated with lost streamflow or reduced
watershed health caused by exporting water out of an area (e.g., fewer fish, smaller wetlands),
societal costs (e.g., fewer recreational opportunities, decreased tourism), the costs of centralized
infrastructure instead of dispersed systems, and others. These indirect costs may result in more
significant economic, social, political, and environmental effects than the direct economic costs.

Adding to the difficulty of determining the overall costs of a water supply is that those costs are
often countered by indirect or non-economic benefits for instance, moving water from a stream
to a distant reservoir may result in the loss of recreational opportunities in one location that are
offset by increased recreational opportunities in another. Moving water from an area with a
smaller population and lower economic demand into an area with a larger population and larger
existing economic infrastructure may create more extensive economic benefits related to
increased development. Another difficulty in determining costs is that these indirect economic
considerations may or may not be evaluated as part of any particular water system depending on
the level of public oversight, public interest and review, the perceived values of the affected
resources, and other factors.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 34
WHAT INFLUENCES DESALINATION COSTS?

Given the caveats above, some of the primary variables that determine costs for desalinated
water are described below, along with some general comparisons between the costs of
desalination and the costs of other water supplies. Many costs, such as those associated with
storing or transporting water, are common to almost all water sources.

! Energy use and costs: Review under the Coastal Act includes consideration of a proposed
developments energy consumption. Section 30253 of the Act requires, in part, that energy
consumption of new development be minimized.

Energy represents the single largest direct cost in producing desalinated water. Advances in
desalination technology over the last ten years have significantly reduced the amount of
energy needed to produce a given amount of water; however, energy continues to represent
about one-third to one-half of the cost of desalination. As a result, desalination costs are
relatively sensitive to the cost of energy it is estimated that each one-cent difference in the
price per kilowatt-hour of electricity causes about a fifty-dollar difference in the cost to
produce an acre-foot of desalinated water. For example, water produced by desalination at a
cost of $800 per acre-foot with electric rates at $0.05 per kilowatt-hour would cost $1050 per
acre-foot if the electricity instead cost $0.10 per kilowatt-hour.

Ocean water is generally more expensive to desalt than brackish water due to its higher
concentration of dissolved solids. Brackish water, with salinity ranging from about 5 to 20
parts per thousand, generally requires less energy to desalt than ocean water, which has
salinity levels greater than 20 parts per thousand.

Along with the energy costs to produce the water, desalination also requires energy to
transport water to its end users. This is a cost common to nearly all water sources, as water is
a relatively heavy commodity and energy costs to lift water uphill or to pump it long
distances can be the single largest expense for many water systems. Because seawater
desalination facilities located along the coast will generally be located at the lowest elevation
of a water service area, they could have significant lifting and distribution costs to get the
water to the end users.

! Water source: There are two main cost components related to the source of water the
initial cost of the water, and the level of treatment needed to produce water of a desired
quality. Regarding the initial costs, from the predominant economic standpoint, one of the
primary benefits of seawater as a source of potable water is that it generally has a direct
monetary price of zero. Seawater is seen as inexhaustible and noninterruptible, and therefore
not subject to price variations due to scarcity or supply and demand. If a proposed
desalination facility is co-located with a facility using an existing seawater supply, such as a
power plant that uses ocean water for cooling, there may additional costs savings by not
having to site, design, and construct new intake and outfall systems needed to use seawater as
the source water. [Note: advantages and disadvantages of co-location are discussed in more
detail in Chapter 5.1.3.] Sources of water other than seawater, such as agricultural water
transfers, reclaimed, or recycled water, may have to be purchased from suppliers and may be
subject to supply variability. However, these sources are often easier and less expensive to
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 35
treat to drinking water standards, because of their lower levels of dissolved solids. One of
the primary issues related to many of these sources is the public perception that a particular
source, such as treated wastewater, is unsuitable as drinking water, despite the ability of a
properly operating desalination system to remove the harmful components in that water.

Regarding the costs associated with treatment, the general relationship is that the better the
source water quality, the less expensive it is to treat. This is similar to brackish water
requiring less energy to treat than seawater the fewer contaminants, such as various
chemicals or organisms (e.g., algal blooms), the less pre-treatment or treatment required, and
thus lower costs. Some of these costs may be reflected in either the frequency of cleaning or
maintenance required due to contaminants in the source water for example, reverse osmosis
membranes generally operate less effectively when there are high levels of dissolved solids,
so such systems often need pre-treatment through sand filters or other types of filters before
the water reaches the final reverse osmosis membranes. This situation can also increase the
long-term maintenance requirements at a facility if the membranes need to be replaced more
often due to water quality issues.

! Desalination method: Of the two primary desalination methods, distillation generally has
higher energy costs than reverse osmosis because of the need to heat the source water. The
cost differential between the two methods can be reduced somewhat if the source water is
pre-heated or if it derives waste heat from another process, such as discharged cooling water
from a coastal power plant, which may be 20
o
C. above ambient ocean water temperature.

! Scale and capacity of facility: Some desalination facilities are likely to benefit from
economies of scale, although this is likely to depend on the particular characteristics,
location, and capacity of a given facility.

! Infrastructure: A desalination facility must be able to either connect to an existing
distribution system or construct new pipelines or a distribution system to get water to the end
users. This cost will vary by location, size of the service area, and other factors. This may
be a significant cost in much of coastal California, where most water delivery systems were
engineered to move water from inland areas to the coast, not the other way around. When
required as part of a proposed seawater desalination facility, some of the impacts associated
with the distribution infrastructure may be part of Coastal Act review.

! Maintenance and Cleaning: Each desalination facility requires some level of anti-fouling
treatment and regular maintenance and cleaning, which will vary based on the desalination
method used, the type of materials used, and other factors. Recent developments in
membrane technology have extended the expected lifespan of many membranes, filters, and
associated materials; however, several of these improvements have not been thoroughly
tested in a production environment. Additionally, like other water sources, once treated
water is in the distribution system, it must be kept clean until it reaches the end users, so
there are ongoing costs associated with maintenance and cleaning the water supply system.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 36
! Conformity with existing water supplies: When various sources of water are mixed in a
distribution system, they must be chemically compatible. For example, mixing water treated
with chlorine and water treated with chloramines may cause problems in the system and to
the end users.

! Desired quality of end product: Not all desalinated water is intended to be used as drinking
water, and costs will vary depending on whether the water will be for purposes needing
higher- or lower-quality water, such as manufacturing, irrigation, or agriculture. The
standards that apply to the end product water will also affect costs for example, a facility
producing drinking water may be subject to stringent treatment requirements, more extensive
sampling and monitoring of both its water quality and its production methods, and other
conditions meant to protect public health.

! Full-time or part-time operation: Facilities that operate part time or to provide back-up
supply are likely to have higher costs per acre-foot of produced water since the capital and
maintenance costs must be paid even when the facility is not producing.

Other variables may include easily-determined costs and benefits such as sales revenue or
financial incentives such as subsidies and grants, as well as less easily-determined considerations
such as the value to a water purveyor or to end-users of having a reliable supply, increased
control over future supplies, and the avoided costs of treatment, storage, and conveyance from
other sources (from the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, San Diego County Water
Authority).

REDUCED COST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESALINATION AND OTHER
SOURCES

A significant economic change during the last decade is the reduced difference in cost between
desalinated water and other water sources. In its 1993 report, the Coastal Commission found that
desalination cost between $1000 and $4000 per acre-foot (including operation and maintenance
costs, along with capital costs amortized over an assumed plant life of 20 to 30 years). While
there are currently no large-scale coastal desalination facilities operating in Southern California
and therefore no actual costs to provide an accurate comparison, estimated costs from several
facilities being proposed along the California coast represent a substantial decrease from 1993
cost estimates (see Table 3)
8
.

8
Additionally, the San Diego County Water Authority recently studied some of the economic considerations that
went into planning the 25 mgd desalination facility built in Tampa Bay, Florida. Water produced from that facility
had been estimated to cost between $560-680 per acre-foot due in part to several economically advantageous aspects
of the proposal:
! The source water in Tampa Bay has lower salinity than ocean water (about 26 ppt vs. 35 ppt);
! Power costs are just under $0.04 per kWh.
! The facility would use the existing intake and outfall from the adjacent power plant.
! Its relatively high capacity of 25 mgd allows for some economies of scale.
(from the SDCWA Urban Water Management Plan, 2000).

This facility opened in March 2003, but has been shut down or operating at lower production rates for most of the
time since then, due to unanticipated processing problems, maintenance requirements, and financial difficulties. The
eventual costs will likely be higher than the estimates cited above.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 37



TABLE 3: PLANNED COSTS OF SEVERAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
DESALINATION PROPOSALS
Facility: Capacity (in million
gallons per day):
Capital Cost
(in millions):
Production Cost (per acre-
foot, w/$0.05 kWh electricity):
Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power
12 $70 $1033
Long Beach Water District 9 $62-92 $711-1171
Orange County Municipal
Water District
25 $114-140 $860-1007
San Diego County Water
Authority
50 $272 $909
West Basin Municipal
Water District
20 $130 $904
(from Shahid Chaudhry, California Energy Commission Unit Cost of Desalination presentation to State
Desalination Task Force, July 30, 2003.)

Note: These figures are based on energy costs of $0.05 per kWh. Under current requirements and
market conditions, energy costs are in the range of $0.08 to $0.13 per kWh, so the production costs noted
above should be adjusted upward by $150 to $350 per acre-foot.


During the same period, the costs of several other existing water sources have increased. For
example, in 1991, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California paid
approximately $27 per acre-foot for water delivered from the Colorado River and $195 per acre-
foot for water from the California Water Project. The MWD now pays an average of $460 per
acre-foot of delivered water. As a result of the cost increase for imported water and the cost
decrease for desalination, the difference between the costs of the two sources has declined from
up to 3000 percent in 1993 to roughly 50 to 100 percent today. Although desalination still costs
more, there is apparently a willingness by some suppliers and users to pay a premium for water
not subject to drought and less vulnerable to disruption.

Even with the trend towards reducing the cost difference between it and other sources,
desalinated water is still likely to cost more for the foreseeable future. The higher costs,
therefore, represent, at least in part, the costs associated with the perceived benefits of having a
local and drought-proof supply.

HOW ARE ECONOMIC COSTS INCORPORATED INTO COASTAL ACT REVIEW?

Review under the Coastal Act requires evaluating the adverse environmental effects of proposed
projects, and identifying the feasible alternatives that would be less environmentally damaging
and the mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize those effects. Feasibility is defined
in section 30108 of the Coastal Act as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors. Cost, therefore, is one element considered in determining which
alternatives and mitigation measures are to be included as part of a proposed project for it to
conform to the Coastal Act. Chapter 2.2.1 of this report discusses feasibility in greater detail.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 38
WHATS LIKELY TO BE NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Realistic assessment of project costs: At the very least, this should include costs of the various
project components that may affect coastal resources and therefore may require an assessment of
alternatives or mitigation measures, and should also include the assumptions used to establish
these costs. It may be most efficient to include a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis as part of
the initial environmental review of a proposed project so these issues can be addressed early in
the process.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 39
CHAPTER 4: COASTAL ACT PUBLIC RESOURCE POLICIES
RELATED TO DESALINATION

Chapter Sections:
4.1 Coastal Resources As Public Resources
4.2 The Potential Effects of International Trade Agreements on Water Services
4.3 Coastal Act Public Resource Policies (including Growth-Inducement, Priority Uses,
Public Access and Recreation)

This chapter provides some background to the Coastal Acts underlying public resource
principles and policies and the relationship of those Coastal Act elements to recent trends in
privatization and international trade agreements. It starts with a discussion of coastal resources
as part of the public commons, and includes a brief description of the Public Trust Doctrine,
one of the underlying legal constructs of the Coastal Act. The chapter next discusses the
potential shift of seawater from a public and commons resource to a private and commodity
resource. It also discusses possible differences in issues that might be evaluated in the context of
coastal resource impacts and Coastal Act policies, depending on whether a proposed desalination
facility is a public or a private commercial venture. Although Coastal Act policies must be
applied equally to public and private commercial projects, different issues may be raised by
virtue of the different nature of each type of entity. These sections are followed by a discussion
of emerging issues relating to the possible implications of international trade agreements on the
ability of state and local communities to effectively implement coastal resource protection
policies in connection with the regulation of certain private commercial desalination projects.
All of these sections address a common element of the Coastal Act that many coastal resources
in general, and ocean water, in particular, are public resources that must be protected for the
benefit of current and future generations. This chapter then closes with discussions of specific
Coastal Act public resource policies, including those related to growth inducement, priority uses,
public access, and recreation.
4.1 COASTAL RESOURCES AS PUBLIC RESOURCES

Main Points:
! Ocean water and its associated uses and values are public resources.
! Approved uses of ocean water must ensure protection of public rights, interests, and values
for ongoing navigation, fishing, recreation, and ecosystem preservation pursuant to the
Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Act policies.
! Coastal desalination represents a shift in the use of seawater from primarily non-
consumptive uses to a consumptive use, which has implications for how seawater is
perceived and valued.

4.1.1 SEAWATER AS PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMONS
A fundamental Coastal Act principle is that many coastal resources are imbued with a public
interest and value that must be vigorously protected for the benefit of current and future
generations. Unlike many coastal resources that are privately owned, ocean water, and the uses
and values it embodies, constitute a public trust resource held in common for public use and
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 40
enjoyment. This principle is codified in numerous federal and state laws and regulations,
including the Coastal Act (see The Public Trust Doctrine, next page). Notwithstanding the
public nature of coastal ocean waters, use of such waters and of living and non-living resources
in and under them have historically been allowed for non-public purposes.

Ocean water serves a number of beneficial uses and vital environmental, social, and economic
functions. It is part of the shared public commons, it serves as habitat for a multitude of
species, it is a source of food and livelihood for society, and it is used to support transportation,
commerce, recreation, and other important societal uses. For the most part, these uses are non-
consumptive and sustainable, in that using ocean water for one of these purposes does not
necessarily impair its ability to be used for others.

SEAWATER AS A COMMON RESOURCE OR COMMODITY?

Using seawater as a source of potable water would represent a shift from it being subject to
primarily non-consumptive uses to including a consumptive use. The scale of ocean water
consumption due to proposed desalination would be extremely small compared to the overall
size of the resource; however, there could be significant local or regional direct or cumulative
impacts to the uses or values associated with ocean water. The economic dynamics and
considerations involved in the consumptive use of a resource are significantly different from
those of a non-consumptive use. One of these differences is that seawater is transformed from a
public trust resource held in common for public use to that of a commodity
9
to be taken out of
the larger resource to be sold and consumed. This commodification, or conversion of a
resource from being subject to mostly non-market social rules to market rules, is generally
accompanied by significant shifts in how it is perceived and managed, and changes the basis of
decision-making about the resource from being guided by non-market social rules to being
directed primarily subject to market economic rules
10
.

This shift is not unique to some degree, many other public goods or resources have become
commodities, including fresh water (through appropriative water rights, water marketing,
interbasin transfers, etc.), clean air (through emissions trading), and public land (through grazing
permits, timber harvests, mineral extraction, etc.). Each of these shifts has been accompanied by
changes in how these resources are perceived and managed for example, the public or private
rights conveyed by their use, the interests, values and responsibilities involved in decision-
making about them, and changes in both anticipated and unanticipated costs and benefits
resulting from the manner in which they are used.



9
Commodity: 1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage; 2. An article of trade or
commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold. From The American
Heritage

Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

10
From Gleick, Peter, Gary Wolff, Elizabeth Chalecki, and Rachel Reyes. The New Economy of Water: The Risks
and Benefits of Globalization and Privatization of Fresh Water. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, February 2002.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 41
THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal construct that predates by centuries
the origins of the U.S. and the many other Western countries where it applies. The doctrine reflects English
Common Law dating from the era of the Magna Carta in the 13
th
Century, which is, in turn, based on the
J ustinian Code of the Roman Empire.

Public trust resources are those that cannot be fully owned by a private entity and are held and managed by the
state (the trustee) for the benefit of all. Some core principles of managing such a trust are: the trustee works
solely on behalf of the beneficiaries (the public); the productive capacity of the trust is to be protected; and, the
benefits and productivity are to be perpetual
1
. In practice, the Public Trust Doctrine requires that resources
subject to the public trust (e.g., tidal and submerged lands) must be used in a manner that is consistent with
public trust purposes and values even when private uses of such resources are permitted. The Doctrines most
common uses have been to ensure that navigable waters, tidelands, and submerged lands are protected for
navigation, commerce, and fishing, although the flexibility inherent in the general Doctrine has resulted in
somewhat different applications in different states. In California, it is codified in portions of the state
Constitution
2
. California courts have determined the doctrine applies not only to the land underlying the water
but also to the water itself
3
, and applies not only to navigation
4
, commerce and fisheries, but also to water
quality boating, swimming, fishing, hunting, and all recreational purposes
5
, preservation
6
, and other
ecological and aesthetic values
7
. While private uses are allowed, they are generally limited to those that
would not harm or interfere with public trust values, including the uses identified above.

In California, while the state legislature and the State Lands Commission, and, ultimately the courts are the
primary guardians of land and water resources impressed with public trust values and interests, other public
agencies and policies, such as the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act, share public trust stewardship
responsibilities and represent additional statutory codification of the Doctrine. The Commissions review of
proposed coastal desalination facilities using seawater from the open ocean, bays, or estuaries must address the
question whether the proposal is consistent with public trust principles as embodied in Coastal Act policies. As
a basic underpinning of the Coastal Act, the Doctrine informs the Commissions interpretation and application
of the Acts policies, and when applying those policies in its decisions, the Commission manifests and
implements its public trust responsibilities to protect marine organisms, ecological functions and habitat,
aesthetics, and other public trust interests and values.
_________________
1
Fairfax, Sally. Trusts and the Public Trust Doctrine, from Tomales Bay Institute speech given November 14, 2000.

2
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25: The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of
the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall
ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any
water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for
the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.

3
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419.

4
People v. Gold Run Ditch and Mining Co. (1884) 66 Cal. 138.

5
People v. Mack, 19 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1045, 97 Cal. Rptr. 448 (1971).

6
Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251, 259, 491 p.2d 374, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790 (1971) [O]ne of the most important public uses
of the tidelands is the preservation of these lands in their natural state

7
National Audubon Society v. Superior Ct., 33 Cal.3d 419, 435, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 49 (1983) The principal
values plaintiffs seek to protect, however, are recreational and ecological the scenic views of the lake and its shore, the
purity of the air, and the use of the lake for the nesting and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney, supra, 6 Cal. 3d 251
[491 P.2d 374, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790] (1971), it is clear that protection of these values is among the purposes of the public
trust. Also City of Berkeley v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.3d 515, 521, 606 P.2d 362, 162 Cal. Rptr. 327 (1980) Although
early cases expressed the scope of the publics rights in tidelands as encompassing navigation, commerce and fishing, the
permissible range of public uses is far broader, including the right to preserve the tidelands in their natural state as
ecological units for scientific study.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 42
Additionally, these commons resources fresh water, clean air, public land were initially
thought of as limitless, renewable, or sustainable, at least at their historic levels of use. With
increasing pressures at local or regional scales, however, these resources have in many places
shifted from being used at renewable levels to being degraded, used at unsustainable levels, or
otherwise used in ways that reduce their availability to the public at large. Increased
consumptive uses and the industrial processes associated with those uses can create localized
adverse impacts, either directly through facility siting, entrainment of marine organisms, or
pollution discharges or indirectly due to poorly planned infrastructure systems, induced
growth, or the numerous cascading environmental consequences that occur subsequent to many
of the direct impacts. For example, trading emissions credits between air basins may result in an
overall air quality improvement, but may cause one local population to suffer some loss of a
common good (healthful air quality) due to improvements gained by another population.
Similarly, a large-scale interbasin transfer of fresh water to a heavily-populated area may create
shortages of a previously common good in the extraction area where economic considerations
and pressure for development are not as great as in the areas to which the water is being
transferred.

This increase in consumptive use may also increase the pressure to emphasize the market value
i.e., the commodification) of ocean water relative to its commons value. Currently, seawater
is generally considered a limitless resource, just as the other resources of the commons were
thought of in the past. And like the use of those other resources, consumptive uses of seawater
and the industrial processes associated with those uses can result in significant direct or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts at the local or regional level, resulting in effects such
as species decline, reduction in bio-diversity, decline in water quality, degradation of scenic
resources, development pressure, beach closures, or other adverse effects on coastal ecosystems.
While ocean water desalination may not raise precisely the same concerns as interbasin transfers
of surface or subsurface freshwater noted above, there are parallels for example, a seaside
community may be asked to absorb the adverse effects of a desalination facility, such as the
impacts of the seawater intake and brine discharge on local beaches and marine life, while
another community elsewhere on the coast or located some distance inland may reap the benefits
of the produced water supply.

One significant difference between the proposed use of seawater for desalination and the other
examples above is that the shift from a public trust or common resource to that of a privatized,
marketable commodity has not yet happened in California. This provides an opportunity for a
timely assessment and deliberative public discussion of the relative merits and demerits, and the
potential comparative costs and benefits of allowing, or not allowing, a shift to a new form of
appropriation of a common public resource (i.e., ocean water) imbued with public trust values.







SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 43
4.1.2 COASTAL ACT CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP OF WATER SERVICES

Main Points:
! Public not-for-profit and private commercial desalination facilities may raise different
types of coastal resource impact concerns. Although the same Coastal Act policies
generally apply to both public and private facilities, determining whether each type of
facility conforms to those policies may require different types of information and may
result in different decisions or conditions of approval to ensure coastal resources are
adequately protected.
! Private seawater desalination may result in an inherent conflict between the interest of a
community in having a local and reliable supply of water while at the same time placing
the decisions about how that water is used, priced, and managed outside of the
communitys control.

The prevalent mechanism for water commodification is privatization, or the transfer of some
or all assets or operations from public to private entities. The legal and institutional nature of
public and private entities delivering water services to communities of consumers exist on a
continuum. There are purely public and purely private entities, with many variations in
between
11
. The institutional arrangements between public and private entities can vary based on
financing, production, operation, maintenance, management, marketing, pricing, public
accountability, and distribution of water for various uses. Examples range from a situation
where a public agency contracts with a private firm only to construct a new facility that is to be
operated by the public entity, to the design-build-own-operate approach in which the private
entity is contracted to take on all, or many, of a public agencys role in providing water services.

In California, water provision has most commonly been a service supplied by some type of
public agency, municipal water district, or mutual water company, with a smaller number
provided by investor-owned utilities
12
. The public agencies are generally subject to the types of
standards and practices common to other public entities, such as transparency of decision-
making by elected or appointed officials, requirements for public notice, public hearings and
opportunity for public comment and oversight, and other similar measures. Public agencies
subject to California Public Utility Commission (PUC) rate-setting regulations have consumer
rates set at levels needed to cover costs of capitalizing facilities and operating the water service.
The PUC also establishes rates for some private commercial for-profit operators which allow for

11
For example, Coastal Act Section 30114(a) defines public works, in part as: production, storage, transmission,
and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public
agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities.

12
A public agency or municipal water district is meant to operate on behalf of the public that it serves. It is
generally managed by a board that is either publicly-elected or appointed by elected officials. A mutual water
company is generally a not-for-profit private company whose shareholders are the local property owners that use the
water supply provided by the company. A private, or investor-owned company is organized as an investment
venture to generate profit for its owners or shareholders, who may or may not be local users of the water supply.

The California Department of Water Resources reports that in 1994-96, of the 2850 water agencies in California,
195 (or about 7%) were private investor-owned facilities (Source: California Water Plan Update: Bulletin 160-98).

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 44
a reasonable profit on investment incorporating a variety of factors, including maintaining
service quality, accountability, maintenance of the system, security, competition with other
providers and users, and longevity of operations. There are also some private entities not subject
to PUC rate-setting authority or associated regulatory oversight.

Two converging trends in this arena evident today are the allure of privatization and the
perception of water services as a profit-making venture. As public entities face growing
budgetary constraints, many local elected officials are attracted to the perceived benefits of
privatizing all or some of their water service responsibilities. Concurrently, a number of
domestic and multinational business entities have identified providing water or water services
as an attractive profitable investment opportunity. Recent trends towards utility deregulation and
interest by government entities to privatize public services are creating opportunities for private
investors to take on some risks and responsibilities of providing water to the public in exchange
for some level of compensation and profit. Additionally, some government and business sectors
see water and water services as a marketable commodity rather than as a natural resource held in
common for the public good or as a responsibility reserved for government implementation.
Even assuming some financial benefit for public agencies, the combination of seawater
desalination and the current interest in deregulation, privatization, and running government like
a business creates a potential for commodification and privatization of ocean waters that, from
the served communitys perspective, may prove to be environmentally, socially, and
economically ill-advised.

There have been a number of risks identified in privatizing the provision of water, which at the
very least, may need to be addressed by governmental entities considering such a move:

! Will the privatization agreements protect public ownership of water and water rights?
! Will there be adequate public oversight and monitoring?
! What measures will be implemented to protect ecosystems or other water users, for both
water quantity and water quality?
! What effect will privatization have on water-use efficiency and conservation?
! How will it affect under-represented or under-served communities, and what effect will it
have on economic inequities?
! What measures are in place to rescind the agreements if privatization does not work or causes
problems?
13


A government entity considering a transfer of water-related assets from public to private control
should, at the very least, incorporate answers to these questions into its considerations.

APPLYING COASTAL ACT POLICIES TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FACILITIES

Although public and private development proposals are generally held to the same Coastal Act
standards when determining conformity with Coastal Act requirements, the law and its
application in practice may result in some differences when reviewing one or the other type of
proposal. Determining whether a proposal conforms to Coastal Act policies may require
additional or different evaluations depending on the public or private nature of the entity

13
From Gleick et. al, ibid.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 45
proposing the new development. Recognizing that the same policies apply in either case,
examples of possible differences include:

! Assessing the growth-inducing consequences of a desalination facility, including whether
water service can be provided outside of existing community service areas.

! Identifying how and where a new water supply will be used to support other development,
and whether that development, if in the coastal zone, is supportive of coastal priority uses
for example, a public facility is likely to factor into its water service decisions the need to
provide for priority uses, whereas a private facility may make its service decisions based on
the profitability of selling to one user over another.

! Determining incentives for project operators to implement effective water conservation
measures that provide coastal resource protection benefits.

! Determining whether the project might compromise the fiscal viability of existing
community services, or creates the potential to transfer responsibility for service to the public
if a private water service venture either fails to obtain necessary financing (as was apparently
the case with the recent Tampa Bay, Florida desalination project), or fails financially and
ceases operations.

A key underlying difference between a public and private entity the degree to which each is
subject to public scrutiny and accountability may result in a need for different types of
assurances or permit conditions for each to ensure conformity to Coastal Act policies. Several
areas where these differences are likely to show up such as growth-inducement, coastal-
dependency, priority uses, and others are discussed in later sections of this report.

In addition to these potential differences in determining whether a public or private development
conforms to particular Coastal Act policies, there are broader implications that may affect how
other aspects of the Coastal Act are implemented. Allowing ocean waters to become a
commodity and marketed for profit would result in a substantial change in how seawater is used
and valued by society. As a privatized commodity, water and water services would be
developed, managed, and marketed as a for-profit product subject to market forces and practices
significantly different from the values and decision-making involved when that same water is
subject to the full range of public interest values. While the focus of regulatory and planning
review pursuant to the Coastal Act must be on coastal resource impacts and conformity to the
Acts policies, neither the Commission nor the public is likely to ignore the differences between
a project driven by market forces serving the interests of investors and one driven by a public
agency acting in what is required to be for the best interests of the community and coastal
resources.

Private corporations are at the forefront of the drive to privatize public-serving water systems
around the country and in the world. Unlike public agencies, which generally have an obligation
to incorporate numerous social, environmental, health, and safety considerations into their
decision-making, the primary purpose of private corporate commercial entities is to maximize
profits for shareholders. It is the institutional nature of the corporation, and the responsibility of
corporate directors and officers, to maximize return on investment, which is not necessarily in
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 46
the best interest of the local community or the environment. This invariably affects the way
business is conducted and the way decisions are made, resulting in what can be significant
impacts on consumers, the community, and the environment. Accordingly, if corporations are
allowed to own, operate and profit from water services, pressure will inevitably be brought to
bear on ways to increase profits through means such as expansion of service area, rate increases
and higher consumption, which are not necessarily in the public interest.

Where profit is the primary motive underlying the ownership and provision of water services, it
would not be unreasonable to conclude that water conservation, water reclamation, water quality,
minimization of growth-inducing effects, and safeguarding community serving water systems
against destructive hostile action may be compromised. Unlike public agencies not in pursuit of
financial gains, privatized systems can reasonably be expected to provide only those
environmental protections and other system safeguards that government regulations require or
that marketing and tax write down incentives offer as economic benefits. For example, if
conservation is seen as being in the public interest, a public agency might more strongly
emphasize water conservation over water production, even if foregoing increased production
would bring in less revenue. A private, for-profit facility, on the other hand, is more likely to
emphasize the opportunity for increased profits that come with increased production. In
addition, given the importance of community water systems, it is necessary and appropriate to
expect the owner-operator to take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure public safety by
protecting the integrity of the system against hostile action (disruption or contamination of water
supply). Public agencies have responsibilities to do so as a matter of their fundamental structure
and duty notwithstanding the costs involved. Privately owned and operated for-profit systems
are not driven by similar considerations, and may more readily chose to do no more than the
minimum required to ensure basic protection of the system.

Several recent experiences in several areas of the U.S. and other parts of the world suggest that
user rates, quality of customer service, infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, system
reliability and water pressure may suffer if water services are privatized. Examples of private
entities leaving the public to absorb the consequences, often at great public expense, are many
14
.
The Coastal Commission has experience with failed privately owned projects (e.g., fiber-optic
cable projects, coastal hotels, etc.) that adversely affected public resources but did not adequately
provide some of the amenities necessary to mitigate for those effects. Other examples include
public agencies having to take on the work and expense of cleaning up toxic contamination on
sites abandoned by or transferred to the public by private commercial users. A local example is a
recent public buy-back of the water system in Montara, California, which required passage of an
$11 million bond by the local water users.





14
Various reports and articles note difficulties with privitization in communities including Montara, California;
Tampa Bay, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Stockton, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; Indianapolis, Indiana;
Lawrence, Massachusetts.; the counties of Duval, Nassau and St. J ohns in Florida; Huber Heights, Ohio;
Chattanooga, Tennessee; Washington Court House, Ohio; Peoria, Illinois; Pekin, Illinois; Angleton, Texas, and
others.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 47
The privatization and commodification of water services and water raises questions and concerns
both directly and indirectly relevant to implementing Coastal Act policies. Many of these issues
are part of a larger public policy debate, and raise questions about the implications of shifting
control from public to private, such as the following:

! Should seawater, a public resource held in common for the benefit of current and future
generations, be allowed to be expropriated by private business for profit?

! Is it in the public interest, and is it good public policy, for community-serving water systems
to be bought by, or turned over to for-profit corporations?

! Does privatization of seawater desalination, with its decision-making by non-elected, non-
appointed, and non-local interests, contradict the desire of communities to have a local and
reliable water supply?

! Does the public or private nature of a community-serving water system result in a different
level of security regarding protection of public health, protection from water supply
disruption due to threats, or other related issues?

! What is the potential that international trade agreements could be used to override or impair
state and local regulation of desalination facilities owned and operated by multi-national
companies? This is a serious concern and is discussed in the next section of this report.

The profound changes in the world of water services discussed above are concurrent with
technological advances that are making seawater desalination more feasible. Water providers
along the California coast are proposing or considering numerous large-scale proposals to tap
into the Pacific Ocean for potable water at economic costs approaching those of some other
current sources, such as water imported from the Central Valley or the Colorado River. While
many issues associated with the shifting legal landscape of providing water services in California
lie within the purview of other government bodies, including various federal agencies, the
California Public Utilities Commission, or the State Water Resources Control Board, the Coastal
Commission still retains has important responsibilities in determining whether proposed
desalination projects are consistent with the public policies related to coastal resource protection.











SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 48
4.2 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
AGREEMENTS ON WATER SERVICES

Main Points:
! California expects that its laws and regulations apply as written and implemented;
however, there are concerns that recent international agreements and legal decisions
relating to free trade could be construed as limiting the ability of state and local
governments to effectively regulate the activities of multinational corporations as they
relate to environmental protection.
! These concerns about how current and proposed international trade agreements will affect
state and local agencies abilities to regulate proposed desalination facilities are based in
part on the stated purpose of many of these agreements, which is to remove as many
barriers to trade as possible. In some cases, this may include environmental protection
statutes, such as those contained in the Coastal Act.
! Desalination projects proposed by multinational interests will undergo careful review and
evaluation to ensure international trade agreements allow conformity to the Coastal Act.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This section summarizes some of the complex underpinnings and possible consequences of the
growing body of international trade agreements and international law that could ultimately
change the governance of public resources (see Primary Multinational Agreements, next page).
California expects that its laws and regulations will apply as written and implemented; however,
arguments are being made that some existing and proposed agreements might limit the ability of
state and local agencies to review and regulate projects for the purpose of environmental
protection in cases that involve private entities with multinational ties. Agreements not yet
adopted but currently being negotiated arguably could have even greater potential to affect state
and local government regulation.

Provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS), the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), and resulting
changes in international law have created a new generation of complex, binding and enforceable
trade agreements that raise potential conflicts with state and local regulatory authority, and may
make nation-states liable for, among other things, lost corporate profits and investment
expectations. There are differences between the various multinational agreements as to their
extent into regulatory issues, their enforcement and monitoring provisions, whether signatory
nations opt in or opt out of various provisions, and others. Within the various types of
agreements, there are also different methods for implementing the agreements, each of which
may affect local or state decision-making to a different degree. They range from the less
restrictive Most Favored Nation status to provisions that limit the ability to apply domestic
regulations to multinational entities. However, the common focus of these agreements is to
remove as many barriers to trade as possible, which could include removing or weakening many
domestic environmental, safety, and health standards. There are also similar bilateral agreements
now in place or being negotiated that have a similar focus.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 49



APPLICABILITY OF TRADE AGREEMENTS TO SEAWATER DESALINATION

Water provision is not yet specifically listed as a service covered by the GATS, and has not yet
been included by the U.S. as a specific service commitment; however, numerous water-
dependent services have been included, and European Union proposals to include water as a
service are currently being negotiated. If this occurs, it will mean that several of the more far-
reaching provisions of GATS will apply to the provision of water services, including those
provided through seawater desalination. Indeed, there is a strong push from several of the more
powerful negotiating countries to include all services unless specifically exempted.


Primary Multilateral Agreements

Trade agreements provide a legal framework that defines the rules of international trade, a dispute resolution
process for the interpretation of those rules, and the enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure
compliance of those rules.

GATT - The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, first negotiated in 1947, represents the primary
foundation for modern multilateral trade agreements. Most recently renegotiated in 1994, GATT remains the
primary agreement addressing the trade in goods. It also provides the basic framework for international trade
and lays down many of the principles used in subsequent agreements. GATT is a voluntary organization, and
it possesses few enforcement mechanisms.

WTO - The World Trade Organization agreement was negotiated in the Uruguay Round of trade talks and
took effect in 1995. Currently, 142 countries are parties to the agreement. The WTO is the umbrella
organization that covers about 60 agreements and separate commitments (called schedules). The WTO
agreement is considered as a "single undertaking" agreement, meaning that by joining the WTO, a party
(member nation) agrees to all of the covered agreements. The WTO, unlike its GATT predecessor, has real
authority and disciplinary power.

NAFTA - The North American Free Trade Agreement was negotiated between Mexico, Canada and the
United States and took effect in 1994. It seeks to eliminate all trade restrictions between the three countries
and create a single trade region.

FTAA - The Free Trade Area of the Americas is now being negotiated and will encompass 34 of the 35
nations of North, Central and South America (excluding Cuba). The details are not yet known, but all
indications are that it is being modeled after NAFTA.

GATS The General Agreement on Trade in Services is part of the WTO and is under current negotiation
(although the framework itself is not still under negotiation). A service is an intangible product of human labor.
The GATS would create new trade rules that will affect the ways in which services are provided, including
essential services such as public water supplies, public health care and public education. The stated goal of
the GATS is the progressive liberalization of trade in services, which means removing as many barriers to
trade as possible.

From the California State Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy and State Legislation
Factsheet: Terms of International Trade.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 50
As noted in the previous section, the provision of water in urban areas has until recently been
primarily a not-for-profit public service provided by public agencies, municipal water districts,
or by mutual water companies controlled by shareholders who are the consumers living within
the service area. Over the last decade, however, there has been a global push and trend to
privatize water supplies and treat water as a for-profit commodity. Because of global
consolidation within the water industry over this period, most private entities active in the
industry today are subsidiaries or affiliates of multinational corporations. Three such entities
(Vivendi, Suez Lyonnaise and RWE) now control more than 50% of the global water market
15
.

These agreements are not limited to those trade activities that occur across national boundaries,
but also includes entirely local transactions that involve a multinational corporation. The GATS
defines trade in services broadly enough to apply to entirely local transactions if one of the
entities is a multinational doing business in the territory of another member
16
. Under GATS,
once a country has committed to apply GATS to a specific service sector, domestic laws relating
to the provision of covered services must be based on objective and transparent criteria, and
not be more burdensome than necessary
17
. A report produced for the Council of Canadians
states, When transnational corporations become partners in a public-private partnership
relationship, what would otherwise be entirely a matter of domestic regulation and contract
becomes subject to international trade regulation
18
. This means that a multinational corporation
based in a NAFTA-member country or another country party to a similar agreement, (of which
there are many) that is intending to operate a private desalination facility in California, even if
only for local water distribution, could claim investor rights under NAFTAs Chapter 11.
Moreover, the home country of the multinational could challenge the states regulatory
requirements under GATS, possibly subjecting the states regulatory requirements to legal
challenge at the international level. Challenges could be brought, for example, against Coastal
Act policies relating to concentration of development, siting, habitat protection, agricultural
preservation, or mitigation requirements for impacts related to entrainment, discharge, or runoff.
Additionally, and importantly, if a multinational corporation invokes the WTO or NAFTA rules
to challenge an action taken by the Commission or any other local or state agency, the party to
the proceedings is not the agency whose action is being challenged, but the federal government.

The various trade agreements generally recognize the need for some level of health, safety, and
environmental laws and regulations for example, NAFTA, GATS, and GATT, all contain a
provision supporting rules necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. However,
even with these provisions, thus far, and with one limited exception, all decisions on challenges
to environmental laws under NAFTA and GATT have favored the multinational corporations.




15
Thirst for Control, Steven Shrybman, 2002, p. 23.

16
General Agreement on Trade in Services, Article 1:2 (c), (d).

17
Trade & Investment in Services, The Alliance for Sustainable J obs and the Environment, 2002, p. 7.

18
Thirst for Control, Steven Shrybman, 2002, p. 11.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 51
Examples include:

! A NAFTA tribunal ruled that Mexico must pay Metalclad Corporation $16.7 million to
compensate for the refusal by a Mexican municipality to allow Metalclad to run a hazardous
waste dump after the federal government had assured the investor that it had all the necessary
approvals, and the investor had sunk a lot of money into the project. With regards to the
case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia opined that NAFTAs expropriation rule,
(takings provisions for foreign investors) is sufficiently broad to include a legitimate
rezoning by a municipality or other zoning authority,
19
which could pave the way for
multinational corporations to make claims that go well beyond takings claims allowed
under the U.S. Constitutions 5
th
Amendment.

! Aguas del Tunari, a subsidiary of the American-based Bechtel Corporation is currently suing
the government of Bolivia for $25 million in lost profits from a failed privatization scheme in
the city of Cochabamba. The dispute is being heard pursuant to a bilateral treaty between the
Netherlands and Bolivia and a World Bank lending requirement. The tribunal hearing the
dispute, the World Banks International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes,
has determined the case does not allow public participation or public access to the
proceedings or to its associated documents.

! Several countries brought a challenge to the WTO against the U.S. requirement for shrimpers
to use turtle-excluding devices on their nets. The tribunal upheld the right of the U.S. to
impose requirements on shrimpers who catch shrimp for sale in the U.S., but also determined
that the U.S. regulations were too strict. The federal government chose to resolve the issue
by suspending the regulations relating to turtle-excluding devices and on-board monitors, and
subsequently re-write them in what some say is substantially weakened form.

! In a case pending before the NAFTA tribunal, Methanex Corporation, maker of the gasoline
additive MTBE, is seeking $970 million in damages due to Californias phase-out of that
additive, which Methanex characterizes as a barrier to free trade.

If the U.S. were to agree to include the provision of water as a service subject to GATS, Coastal
Act policies as applied to private desalination facilities could potentially be interpreted as
barriers to free trade if the Commission or local government imposed permit conditions that were
found to be overly burdensome or subjective by a WTO tribunal, or because they exceed
regulations imposed by other countries for similar activities
20
. Indeed, the Coastal Act is not the
only regulatory program that could be at risk. Challenges could be lodged against government
action under CEQA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and any other state, federal and

19
The United Mexican States vs. Metaclad Corporation, 2001 BCSC 664.

20
"Standards imposed by, and practices employed in, other countries can create de facto standards that may be
treated as demonstrating the existence of a "less burdensome alternative" for purposes of GATS Article VI:4(b) and
VI:5(a). In addition, GATS envisions that reviewing bodies will look to "international standards of relevant
international organizations" in determining whether a member is complying the "objective and transparent criteria"
and "no more burdensome than necessary" standards. Art. VI:5(b)."

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 52
local environmental protection law that regulates land and water use, or the quality of water, air,
or other resources where multinational entities are involved.

Because these emerging changes in international law are evolving and are subject to
interpretation by private trade tribunals, they raise more questions than this report can
definitively answer. It is likely that the full scope of the effects of NAFTA, GATS and other
trade agreements on Californias coastal management program will not be fully understood
unless and until tested through the various dispute resolution processes, and perhaps not even
then. To compound the situation, the impact and implications of these treaties are constantly
shifting as a result of ongoing rounds of progressive trade agreement negotiations. If the U.S.
were to agree to expressly include water as a service subject to GATS, it would create the
potential for new and broader challenges along these lines. In the rush to address Californias
growing water needs, the consequences of international trade agreements constitute a profound,
though not well understood, challenge to protecting public trust resources and implementing
coastal resource protection policies pursuant to the Coastal Act at the state and local level.



CONCLUSIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS

The California Coastal Act is widely regarded among international coastal managers as the
strongest and most effective of integrated coastal management programs. Given the risks to the
program, to the states coastal resources, and to most of the states other significant
environmental, health, and safety requirements meant to protect the public and the states

Water Privatization in California: Of the approximately two dozen desalination projects currently proposed
along the coast, at least six are proposed as privately-held facilities or public/private partnerships, including
two (in Huntington Beach and Carlsbad) that would be the largest coastal desalination facilities in the U.S.

Other multinational private entities involved in supplying water to California include:

! US Filter, a subsidiary of the French company Vivendi, purchased about 45,000 acres of farmland in
the Imperial Valley with access to water rights totaling approximately 250,000 acre-feet per year,
representing about 8% of the amount used by San Diego County.

! California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), which owns several water utilities in the state (in
Sacramento, Sonoma, and Monterey Counties, and in the communities of Montara, Moss Beach,
Felton, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Coronado, and Imperial Beach) is owned by American Water
Works, which in turn is owned by Thames Water, the largest water company in England, which in turn
was recently purchased by RWE, a firm based in Germany. Cal-Am is proposing a desalination facility
at Moss Landing.

! Poseidon Resources, proponent of the largest desalination facilities being proposed along the coast,
has partnerships with a number of multinational companies, including Suez Lyonnaise and U.S. Filter.

! OMI-Thames, a joint venture involving Thames Water, now operates the water utility for the City of
Stockton through a 20-year, $600 million contract.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 53
resources, California should proceed cautiously in reviewing proposals to further privatize water
and water services, particularly those involving seawater desalination. Such privatization
coupled with uncertainty about the effects of international trade agreements may compromise the
ability of state and local governments to effectively protect the environmental quality and
integrity of life in natural and human communities along the coast.

Possible Commission actions to consider include the following:

! Increase awareness and understanding of the potential impacts of international trade rules on
coastal management. In addition to a focus on desalination facilities, legal research on this
topic should look into a broader range of coastal uses and on overall implementation of
coastal resource protection policies by the Commission and local government. Collaboration
with other state agencies and the state Attorney Generals office is important.

! Before international trade agreements are invoked for for-profit water projects, undertake a
thorough analysis of how the state will be able to implement Coastal Act and other policies
through existing review and permit processes without provoking a trade challenge.

! In collaboration with the Coastal States Organization (CSO), undertake review of this issue
area to identify concerns in common with other coastal states so that California can be part of
a unified voice before Congress calling for safeguarding states rights relative to the
implementation of coastal management programs at the state and local level.

! The Commission, in collaboration with other appropriate state agencies, Californias
Attorney General, the Senate Select Committee on International Trade, and the Coastal States
Organization, should monitor ongoing international trade negotiations by reviewing trade
proposals listed in the federal register and provide comments to the U.S. trade representatives
and the states Congressional delegation about how proposed trade rules could affect
implementation of Californias coastal resource protection policies pursuant to the Coastal
Act and federal consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

! Members of the California Legislature have repeatedly asked that state and local government
regulatory authority to protect public health, safety and welfare be excluded from the
operative provisions of international trade and investment agreements.
21
California should
continue to voice its concerns about language that may compromise its regulatory authority.
Specifically, California should request that U.S. trade negotiators support the position that
water is not a service to be included as a sector-specific commitment under GATS.

In closing, it is clear that desalination projects proposed by private or multinational applicants
must be carefully evaluated for possible implications relative to the effectiveness of coastal
resource protection resulting from the possible operation of international trade treaties.



21
Letter to USTR Rep Bob Zoellick from 29 members of Ca. Legislature, dated 3/28/03; SJ R 40 (Kuehl), chaptered
Aug 2002.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 54
4.3 COASTAL ACT PUBLIC RESOURCE POLICIES
This section of the report describes several Coastal Act policies associated primarily with the
publics use of the coast, including those related to growth-inducement, priority uses, public
access, and recreation. Review of a proposed project for conformity to these policies may differ
for some based on whether it is public or private; for others, the review may be the same.

4.3.1 GROWTH-INDUCEMENT

Main Points:
! The Coastal Act allows growth and development in the coastal zone when it will not have
significant individual or cumulative impacts on coastal resources.
! In some areas along the coast, the water supply provided by desalination may remove the
primary constraint to growth and result in significant effects on coastal resources.
! Determining the growth-inducing impacts of a particular desalination facility will vary
based on its service area, the growth allowed under certified Local Coastal Programs or
other adopted plans, its interconnections with other water supplies or water purveyors, and
whether it is a public or private facility.

One of the Coastal Acts primary principles is that growth and development within the coastal
zone be allowed when it will not cause significant adverse effects to other coastal resources. In
some areas along the coast, desalination could remove what may be the single largest constraint
to growth, a limited supply of potable water. In turn, this additional water could result in new
and unanticipated pressures on local populations and infrastructure. Without adequately
evaluating these increased stresses on local carrying capacity, the additional water available
could cause growth beyond identified planned local or regional growth levels, and have
significant adverse effects on coastal resources.

There are two main Coastal Act policies that require review of a proposals growth-inducing
effects
22
. The crux of these policies is that development in the coastal zone not significantly
diminish other coastal resources. First, Coastal Act Section 30250(a) states, in part:

New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in
this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing
developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to

22
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines at 15126.2(d) provide further guidance on how growth-inducing impacts of
proposed projects should be evaluated:
Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project. Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a
major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas).
Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities
that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may
encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 55
accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have
significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources

By requiring new development be located close to areas of existing development or in areas with
adequate public services, this section of the Act is intended to prevent new development from
outpacing the ability of local communities to provide necessary public services. This
requirement is further supported by section 30254 of the Coastal Act, which states, in part:

New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate
needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this
division Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a
limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential
public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or
nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not
be precluded by other development.

Taken together, these policies generally require new development be located within or next to
existing developed areas able to accommodate such development or in other areas with adequate
public services, and provide that public works facilities be sized based on the ability to maintain,
enhance, or restore coastal resources, and that development allow all coastal resources to remain
viable. New development must also conform to the policies and standards contained in any
applicable Commission-certified LCPs. These policies may relate to regional water and growth
management goals or how limited water resources are allocated.

In addition to these Coastal Act policies, the state Desalination Task Force, in recognizing the
importance of this issue, included as one of its findings:

Growth inducing impacts of any new water supply project, including desalination, must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through existing environmental review and
regulatory processes.

EVALUATING THE GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF COASTAL
DESALINATION PROPOSALS

Reviewing a facilitys potential growth-inducing impacts may cover a wide range of questions
and issues, depending on the characteristics of the proposal. Questions and issues for
desalination proposals may include:

! Is the project meant to provide a baseline supply of water or is it to be used only for
emergencies or drought relief? Projects meant to provide water only during emergencies
are likely to have fewer growth-related impacts than projects providing an ongoing baseline
supply. If a proposed project is intended to provide only emergency or drought-related water
supplies, and evaluation under the Coastal Act reviews only those intended purposes, then
any permit issued for such a project will likely include conditions requiring additional review
if the capacity of the project changes.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 56
! Does the project replace an existing supply of water or provide a new one? Some facilities
are meant to replace water from a supply that may no longer be available to a community,
such as a surface or groundwater source that has become contaminated, or a source that is
overallocated or has been overdrawn. Other desalination facilities are meant to provide water
in addition to existing supplies. The scope of review for each type of proposal will differ.
When a desalination facility is meant to replace an existing supply and therefore avoid or
minimize growth-inducing impacts, the review will need to identify the specific measures
that assure the existing supply will be retired. For example, if a facility is proposed as a
means to replace water currently being withdrawn from a river, the proposal should include
specific measures describing how that water will remain in the river for non-consumptive
purposes, and any permit issued should ensure those measures are appropriate and
enforceable. For proposals meant to augment existing supplies, project review should
determine whether growth related to the increased availability of water would occur within
allowable limits or projections identified in Local Coastal Programs or other local or regional
planning efforts. An example of how these reviews may differ is the desalination facility
currently being considered at the Moss Landing Power Plant on Monterey Bay. The primary
proposal would provide just enough water to replace some currently being withdrawn from
the Carmel River. An alternative proposal being considered would have the facility provide
much more water to serve areas of Monterey County not currently within the service district.
These two proposals will undergo very different evaluations to determine their growth-
inducing impacts.

Where applicable, the review should also evaluate benefits that may result from the proposed
project. For example, desalination could reduce or eliminate withdrawals from surface water
bodies, resulting in more natural streamflows and improved fish or wildlife habitat. If
desalination is meant to replace groundwater withdrawals, it could in some areas reduce
subsidence or seawater intrusion. In areas where surface or groundwater sources have been
contaminated, desalination could provide an alternative source of potable water while
allowing necessary treatment or remediation of the contaminated water source.

! Where will the water go? A desalination facility may be intended to provide water to a
relatively confined service area with known end users, or may be meant to provide water to a
more extensive and less well-defined service area and user base. Determining the growth-
inducing impacts of a proposal must include a description of the service area, the maximum
build-out of that area, and how much growth could be a result of the water supply provided
by the facility. The complexity of this review will vary based on several issues. Review for
growth-inducement and its effect on coastal resources will be simpler in cases where the
service area is well defined, the distribution system is not connected to other systems, and
where the level of development or build-out within the service area is known. Review will
be much more complex and difficult for large-scale proposals that would provide water
through a connected series of distribution systems to a much larger service area both within
and outside the coastal zone. For example, desalinated water produced along the Southern
California coast and distributed through the Metropolitan Water Districts system could
affect water supplies from Ventura to San Diego and inland as far as east as Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties. Determining how the growth induced by this additional water will
affect coastal resources will be challenging.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 57
The review should consider whether the water produced is subject to delivery requirements
and restrictions, long-term contracts, or other binding agreements. It may also be necessary
to identify the capabilities and limits of the associated infrastructure, such as the ability of
existing or proposed water pipelines to deliver water to the service area. The review may
also consider whether the facilitys location will result in changes to the delivery area. For
example, a desalination facility built at some distance from its service area may result in
pressure to provide a portion of that water supply nearer the facility. In some less developed
areas, this could lead to growth outside of existing service boundaries and could provide for
growth beyond levels identified in local planning efforts.

As trends towards water marketing and the potential for interbasin or even international
water transfers increase, any difference in oversight over public or private facilities is likely
to have more far-reaching growth-inducing consequences. Longer distance transfers also
raise issues associated with determining whether local impacts to coastal resources can be
mitigated by benefits that may accrue elsewhere, including some that may occur some
distance from the coast.

! Will the development serve coastal priority uses? One concern to be addressed during
review is how the water from a facility will be allocated. The Coastal Act mandates that
certain types of development along the coast receive priority over other types. These include
visitor and recreation facilities (in section 30213), facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation (section 30222), aquaculture facilities (section 30222.5),
facilities serving commercial fishing and recreational boating (section 30234), and coastal-
dependent development (section 30255). Without adequate public oversight, new
development capable of providing its own water may be able to proceed while other higher
priority development cannot, thus allowing non-priority development that includes
desalination capability and reducing the ability of priority developments to occupy coastal
areas. [See also Chapter 4.3.2.] Additionally, the review may consider the form of
ownership (public or private) and the degree of oversight in how the facilitys water supplies
are allocated.

! Is there adequate public oversight for the facility? Public control of desalination facilities
would generally provide more apparent mechanisms to ensure the capacity is linked to local
growth management plans, goals, and priority uses, and would allow the necessary
involvement by the interested public in decision-making. Public ownership is also likely to
allow for a more comprehensive approach to resolving issues related to regional growth, the
types of development to be considered, and the directions in which it occurs. As stated in
sections 30250(a) and 30254 above, new development must be tied to the capabilities of
public services and public works facilities. For proposed private desalination facilities,
review under the Coastal Act is likely to require specific evaluation of whether they will
incorporate a level of public oversight, decision-making, and consolidation of public interests
necessary to ensure public resources are properly managed.




SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 58
POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE GROWTH-
INDUCING IMPACTS

Possible mitigation measures that will likely be evaluated to avoid or minimize impacts include:

! Implement local or regional water conservation and reclamation measures to reduce the
need for new water projects: In some areas, effective water conservation and reclamation
measures may, in many cases, provide as much or more water than a proposed desalination
project at less cost and with fewer adverse effects. Review of a proposed project should
identify measures such as these as part of the alternatives analysis done for a proposed
facility.

! Link plant capacity to the planned level of development authorized by the certified Local
Coastal Program for the area: Desalination plants and their accompanying water
distribution system should be sized to match the planned level of development authorized by
an areas certified Local Coastal Program. The design, review, and approval of proposed
projects should include a description of the anticipated level of development, and should tie
the permitted activity to that particular development level. This includes assessing the long-
term growth-inducing potential of projects. It may also assess capacity of water delivery
lines, delineation of the service area, identifying legal instruments available to provide a
particular growth level in the area, and other similar measures.

This issue has been addressed in some previous Commission decisions on similar projects
involving growth-inducing impacts. For example, a permit for a water supply pipeline
included a condition requiring the permittee to apply for an amendment if the proposed
development in the area went above a specific level.

! Siting plants near existing water distribution systems and energy sources: This may allow a
desalination facility to operate using existing infrastructure for both water supply and energy,
and not require additional infrastructure build-out and the growth that may be associated with
such a build-out.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Issues that may be addressed during the review include:

! Identify service area and end users (e.g., are there binding contracts for particular areas or
users for certain amounts of water?).
! Identify the types of development to be served.
! If the facility is meant to provide replacement water to allow another existing source to be
retired, what mechanisms ensure the other use is discontinued?






SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 59
4.3.2 PRIORITY USES

Main Points:
! Coastal Act review of a proposed desalination facility may need to evaluate how the facility
would affect priority uses along the coast.
! The review for determining conformity to the Coastal Acts priority use policies is likely to
differ for public or private desalination proposals.

The Coastal Act establishes several types of priority uses in the coastal zone. The main purpose
of including these in the Act is to ensure that uses strongly associated with the coast and found to
be in the public interest remain viable. These types of uses and development (and the
corresponding sections of the Coastal Act where they are listed) include:

! Lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities (Section 30213).
! Visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities
for coastal recreation (Section 30222 this section also prioritizes those facilities over
private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over
agriculture or coastal-dependent industry).
! Aquaculture facilities (Section 30222.5).
! Upland areas for coastal recreation (Section 30223).
! Recreational boating and associated facilities (Section 30224).
! Commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities (Section 30234).
! Prime agricultural land (Section 30241).
! Coastal-dependent development (Section 30255).
! Priority developments must not be precluded by other development due to the limited
capacity of public works facilities (Section 30254).

These designations do not mean that these are the only uses that can be located within the
Coastal Zone. Part of Coastal Act review, however, may consider whether the site of a proposed
development is suitable for priority uses. For a proposed desalination facility, the review may
evaluate at least two aspects of priority use policies:

! How would the proposed facility itself directly affect priority uses? A desalination facility
located on or adjacent to coastal zone sites suitable for higher-priority developments could
remove or reduce land available for such developments. Desalination facilities may result in
several types of adverse effects on coastal resources visual, noise, public access, water
quality, etc. any of which, even if mitigated, could reduce the ability of priority
developments to be sited nearby. This would in turn diminish the coastal uses associated
with these priority developments, and may therefore be inconsistent with Coastal Act goals.
For example, in a decision several years ago, the Commission determined that a desalination
facility being considered in the coastal zone near the cities of Marina and Seaside and
adjacent to a State Park would diminish public access and recreational opportunities in that
area, and further concluded that a feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site
was available east of Highway 1 away from the shoreline area.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 60
! How will the water supply provided by the facility affect priority uses? Coastal Act review
may also consider how the water supply provided by a desalination facility might be used to
either support priority uses or make them less viable. For example, if an inadequate water
supply is limiting the opportunity for low-cost visitor serving facilities, or coastal agriculture,
a desalination facility may be able to provide the water necessary for those uses. In other
cases, the water from a desalination facility may be too expensive for such priority uses and
only affordable by higher-cost visitor serving facilities. The increased development
pressures on these areas may result in non-priority development, especially if the desalination
water supply is more costly than certain priority uses can afford for example, agriculture
and low-cost visitor serving facilities are not likely to be able to afford water from a
desalination facility when a high-cost visitor facility could.

Support for priority uses could also be affected by whether the water is provided by a public
or private facility. In areas where development is limited by the available water, private
facilities that provide their own water might be able to proceed while other higher priority
developments that do not have the ability to provide their own water might not. A private,
non-priority development could therefore override Coastal Act preferences for priority
coastal uses or might not be subject to water allocation decisions made by a local public
water purveyor. Because desalination remains a relatively costly process, a developments
ability to provide its own desalinated water may be largely based on financial considerations
rather than whether the proposed development is recognized as a priority development for
coastal areas. A lower-cost visitor and recreation facility, for instance, may not be able to
compete with the ability of a higher-cost facility to provide its own water, and so a coastal
site suitable for either type of development may end up used by the latter at the expense of
the former. One other consequence of this issue could show up during difficult financial
times, in that a private development dependent on its own water supply may, for various
reasons, no longer be able to afford the costs of desalination and instead increase the burden
on the local public water purveyor. This additional burden could further limit the ability of
public agencies to allocate water or land to priority coastal uses. A similar resource-
allocation issue may arise due to the relatively high electrical demand associated with
desalination, in that the demand from a desalination facility used by a non-priority
development could limit or preclude the ability of local electrical supplies to support priority
developments.

Public ownership and oversight of desalination facilities, especially in areas with certified
LCPs, is more likely to ensure that water allocations will occur in a manner consistent with
the priority developments identified in the Coastal Act and in the LCP. Allocations from
public facilities are likely to be subject to more ongoing public review, whereas allocations
from private facilities may be primarily market driven and might not adequately reflect
Coastal Act priorities. This difference in how public or private entities might allocate water
is likely to be moderated in areas where the state Public Utility Commission has provided
exclusive retail rights to a municipal water district. In these areas, a private desalination
facility would be able to act only as a water wholesaler and sell only to the water district
where the allocation decisions would be made.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 61
4.3.3 PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
A primary focus of the Coastal Act is its extensive provision for public access to the California
coast. The Act includes a number of policies related to public access and recreation, most of
which provide strong support for the publics ability to use and enjoy coastal areas (see the main
policies listed on the next two pages).

Desalination facilities proposing to locate near the coast will likely require assessment of their
effects on public access to the shore and their potential impacts on recreation. This review
generally evaluates both relatively short-term effects, such as those related to construction, and
the long-term effects related to a facilitys ongoing operations. Review may include
consideration of a range of issues from how the facilitys location affects parking near the coast
to how the facilitys discharge may affect water-based recreation.

Public access and recreation issues may also be incorporated into the review of other Coastal Act
policies for example, projects proposing shoreline protection structures must generally provide
information not only about the site conditions related to erosion and coastal processes, but also
provide information about how the structure could affect public access to that portion of the
shoreline. For facilities proposing to co-locate within the boundaries of an existing power plant
or industrial site, the review may be less extensive, although it will likely need to at least identify
incremental changes to the existing impacts that may be caused by the addition of the
desalination facility.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Identification of short-term impacts, such as:
! Changes in parking and traffic
! Temporary beach closures due to construction.
! Project timing (e.g., will there be closures or traffic and parking restrictions during the peak
times of visitor use?).

Identification of long-term impacts, such as:
! Effects of facility location on access.
! Effects of facility operation on recreation.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 62

PRIMARY COASTAL ACT POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION:

Public Access policies:

Section 30210: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution*,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided
for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private
property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

Section 30211: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired
through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Section 30212:
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided
in new development projects except where:
(1) It is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal
resources,
(2) Adequate access exists nearby, or,
(3) Agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened
to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for
maintenance and liability of the accessway.
(b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include:
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610.
(2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed
residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than
10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected
property as the former structure.
(3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase
either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or
impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure.
(4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired
seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure.
(5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section
30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that
the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach.
As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface
of the structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and
responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the
Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution*.

Section 30212.5: Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities,
shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of
overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.

Section 30213: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. The
commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any
privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public
or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income
persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 63
Section 30214:
(a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the
need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances
in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity.
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such
factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to
adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent
property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of
litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a
reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property
owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California
Constitution*. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the
rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
(c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other responsible
public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative access management techniques,
including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations which would minimize management
costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.

Recreation policies:

Section 30220: Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be
provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.

Section 30221: Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and
development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational
activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.

Section 30222: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities
designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential,
general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent
industry.

Section 30222.5: Ocean front land that is suitable for coastal dependent aquaculture shall be protected
for that use, and proposals for aquaculture facilities located on those sites shall be given priority, except
over other coastal dependent developments or uses.

Section 30223: Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such
uses, where feasible.

Section 30224: Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance
with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing
additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access
corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new
boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land.

* Note: Per the references in Sections 30210, 30212(c), and 30214(b), California Constitution, Article X, Section 4
states: No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay,
inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water
whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the
Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the
navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 64
[this page intentionally blank]
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 65
CHAPTER 5: COASTAL ACT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
RELATED TO DESALINATION

Chapter Sections:
5.1 Potential Impacts on the Marine Environment (including the effects of intakes,
outfalls, and facilities co-located with coastal power plants)
5.2 Other Coastal Act Environmental Policies (including Spill Prevention and
Response, Hazards, Upland Habitats, and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
(ESHAs), and Visual and Scenic Resources)
5.3 Cumulative Impacts

This chapter describes the primary environmental policies in the Coastal Act that will likely need
to be addressed during review of proposed desalination facilities. The chapters primary focus is
on the Coastal Acts marine biology and water quality policies. It discusses how desalination
facilities can adversely affect marine biological resources and ocean water quality, and discusses
how facilities are likely to be evaluated as part of coastal development permit review. It
discusses separately the effects associated with intakes and those associated with outfalls, and
describes several unique issues associated with desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with
coastal power plants that are cooled with ocean water.

The chapter then more briefly describes several other Coastal Act environmental policies that
may be involved in reviewing proposed desalination facilities, including spill prevention, hazard
prevention, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. These policies are dealt with more
briefly since reviewing a desalination facilitys conformity to those policies will likely be similar
to the review done for many other types of proposed development along the coast, in there will
be similar issues and concerns about how a proposal may affect public access or visual and
scenic resources, how to prevent hazardous conditions and avoid spills, determining the effect on
nearby sensitive areas, and the like. This chapter provides only a general discussion of how a
desalination facility might affect these coastal resources this should not be construed as treating
these coastal resources as less important; it means only that they are likely to be evaluated in
ways similar to many other developments that have undergone review under the Coastal Act.
5.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Main Points:
! Desalination facilities can cause significant adverse effects on marine organisms unless
properly designed, sited, and operated.
! Reviewing desalination intakes and outfalls both open-water and subsurface will
require evaluating alternative locations and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize
adverse effects on marine biological resources and that, where feasible, restore those
resources.
! Desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with coastal power plants raise unique issues
with respect to conformity to some Coastal Act policies.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 66
Seawater is not just water, but habitat. It provides the matrix within which innumerable
organisms live, and serves a critical role in everything from the food web to the climate.
Although there is a vast amount of seawater on the planet, and along the California coast, it is
subject to significant adverse effects at the local or regional scale that can diminish its ecosystem
value and its value to society. Common examples of these impacts range from the loss of species
diversity to a decline in the number of organisms in a given area to beach closures caused by
bacterial contamination in the water.

The two components of desalination with the most potential for causing direct adverse impacts to
marine life and water quality are the facilitys seawater intake and its discharge. The intake
system can cause significant levels of impingement and entrainment
23
that can degrade the local
or regional marine ecosystem, and the facilitys discharge of brine and possibly other
contaminants can be harmful to marine life. The severity of these impacts can be mitigated, and
in some cases avoided entirely, through proper facility design, siting, and operation. Without
proper measures, however, the impacts can be substantial. For example, a desalination facility
producing 50 million gallons per day of drinking water would pull in at least 100 million gallons
per day of seawater and discharge at least 50 million gallons per day of highly saline brine
24
.
Since each gallon of seawater can contain hundreds of organisms, this amount of water could
have significant adverse effects on marine life and water quality at the local or regional level.

The report first discusses the impacts associated with the intake entrainment and impingement
and then discusses the impacts associated with the discharge primarily increased salinity and
the presence of chemicals or various contaminants. It then discusses some unique issues
associated with desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with coastal power plants, and how
the review of those facilities may be different from the review of projects proposed to be sited
independently. Of the current proposals along the California coast, the largest are those
considering co-location, and while this approach has some advantages, it also raises significant
issues for Coastal Act conformity. All three of these sections emphasize the need to evaluate
alternatives and mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize the associated effects.

Along with the concerns raised about its potential to cause significant adverse impacts to water
quality and marine biology, there is recognition that desalination could result in some beneficial
changes. One possible benefit could come by using desalinated seawater to replace water
withdrawals from coastal streams. Another possible benefit, on a more conceptual level, could
be that public perception and practices could change if seawater were to be seen as drinking

23
These terms are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Impingement occurs when fish or larger marine
animals are pulled into a seawater intake and are trapped against screens within the intake. They die or are injured
due to water pressure, abrasion, thermal effects, or other causes. Entrainment occurs when an intake draws in small
organisms such as plankton, larvae, fish eggs, and other animals along with seawater. These organisms are small
enough to be pulled through the intake screens, and they are then heated or crushed as they are drawn through the
facility. Entrainment is considered to cause 100% mortality to the entrained organisms, which occurs either as the
organisms pass through the facility or shortly after they are discharged alive but injured.

24
Reverse osmosis facilities generally operate at efficiencies between 15 and 50 percent, so for every gallon of
drinking water they produce, they may need from one to about six gallons of seawater and can discharge from one to
about six gallons of effluent. A 50 million gallon per day facility, for example, would pull in and discharge from
100 to 300 million gallons per day (although the lower the efficiency, the lower the salinity in the discharge).

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 67
water this could lead to more thought and care about how the ocean is treated, what materials
are allowed to or prevented from running into the ocean, and a stronger sense of connectedness
between the coast and everyday practices. On a more pragmatic note, this could also result in
lower treatment costs if the seawater being desalted was cleaner than it might otherwise be.

PRIMARY APPLICABLE COASTAL ACT POLICIES

The primary Coastal Act policies related to marine biological resources and water quality are:

Section 30230:

Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special
protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic
significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy
populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial,
recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

Section 30231:

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the
protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through,
among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment,
controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial
interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining
natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of
natural streams.

These policies establish strong standards for protecting water quality and marine life. They
require not only that biological productivity be maintained and enhanced, but that where feasible,
it be restored. They also specifically require sustained biological productivity and minimization
of entrainment-related effects. By requiring restoration where it is feasible, these policies
recognize that coastal development permit decisions may be based on, and mitigation required
for, measures that go beyond just maintaining what may be a low or poorly functioning baseline
condition. Reviewing proposed desalination facilities will likely require determining an
appropriate environmental baseline and evaluating appropriate alternatives and mitigation
measures that avoid or minimize adverse effects to the marine community and water quality.

Other Coastal Act policies relate to protecting water quality or marine biological resources either
directly or indirectly. These include Sections 30234.5, which requires supporting the marine
environment for commercial and recreational fishing, and recognizes the role of marine life not
only as part of the environment, but as an important part of the states economy:

The economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing activities shall be
recognized and protected.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 68
They also include Section 30220, which helps establish the need to protect water quality to allow
for recreation:

Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be
provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.

Another Coastal Act policy that may significantly affect the design and operation of some
facilities is the fill policy discussed in Chapter 2.2.2. The consequences of placing fill for
intakes and outfalls deemed coastal-dependent may require design changes to ensure adverse
effects to marine life and water quality are minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

In addition to the above policies, the recently completed work of the states Desalination Task
Force included a number of findings and recommendations related to protection of the marine
environment. Among its recommendations are:

Ensure seawater desalination projects are designed and operated to avoid, reduce or
minimize impingement, entrainment, brine discharge and other environmental impacts.
Regulators, in conjunction with the public, should seek coordinated mechanisms to
mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts.

Where feasible and appropriate, utilize wastewater outfalls for blending/discharging
desalination brine/concentrate.

In addition to review by the Coastal Commission for conformity to policies specific to the
Coastal Act, other agencies may be involved in reviewing different aspects of a proposed
desalination facility, including the state and regional water quality boards, the Department of
Fish and Game, and others. The Coastal Act policies, for example, supplement and support the
requirements of the California Ocean Plan, which the state and regional boards help implement.
The Ocean Plan includes narrative and numeric standards for allowable discharges, and identifies
Areas of Special Biological Significance in which discharges are prohibited or curtailed. The
complementary relationship between the various agencies, their likely role in reviewing
desalination proposals, and the potential for coordination among them is discussed in Chapter 6.

5.1.1 EFFECTS OF DESALINATION INTAKES ON MARINE BIOLOGY
AND WATER QUALITY
The most significant direct adverse environmental impacts of a desalination facility are likely to
be caused by its intake. These impacts also can be completely eliminated by using alternative
designs and mitigation measures.

Most desalination facilities currently under consideration are proposing to use an open water
intake, which pulls in water directly from the water column. The primary adverse effects of
these types of intakes are impingement and entrainment. It is relatively easy to avoid or reduce
impingement; entrainment, however, requires more substantial effort to adequately mitigate.




SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 69
IMPINGEMENT

Impingement refers to causing injury or death to marine organisms by pulling them into an
intake system where they cannot escape due to high water velocity, the length of the intake pipe,
or other aspects of a facilitys design, and they are eventually trapped against a fish screen.
Rates of impingement are primarily a function of the intakes location and the velocity of water
being drawn into the intake.

ENTRAINMENT

Entrainment refers to the death or injury of the relatively small marine organisms, such as
plankton, larvae, and fish eggs, that are too small to be screened out by fish screens and are
pulled through the screens into the processing system of a facility using seawater. Any open
water intake will result in some level of entrainment. Entrainment is most commonly associated
with thermal power plants (coastal or inland) that use once-through cooling systems, but also
occurs in other types of facilities using open water intakes. Entrained organisms are killed due to
high pressures or temperatures within the power plants, or in the case of desalination facilities,
due to the high pressure when water is forced against filters or membranes.

Unlike impingement, which is relatively easy to mitigate through structural or operational
changes to open water intakes, mitigating entrainment requires more significant measures.
While the significance of both impacts is related to the location of an intake, impingement rates
are primarily a function of intake velocity, while entrainment is more closely linked to the
overall volume of water drawn into a facility.

Most studies and findings related to entrainment have been done to determine the effects of
power plant once-through cooling systems on marine biology. Coastal power plants using
hundreds of millions of gallons per day of ocean water can entrain and kill trillions of organisms
annually and can cause substantial changes to the local or regional biological community. The
mortality rate for entrainment in power plants is considered to be 100%, due to the thermal
effects and pressure changes experienced by the organisms. The mortality rate for desalination
facilities would be essentially the same, since the seawater they use is forced through filters or
membranes at high pressures to remove particles, including the small organisms that may be in
the water.

The most common way to determine entrainment effects is by conducting what is known as a
316(b) study, named after the section of the federal Clean Water Act. These studies help
determine whether power plants are in compliance with the Clean Water Act requirement to
minimize adverse environmental impacts by using the Best Technology Available. The study
involves taking water samples at various depths over the course of a year at both the intake site
and a nearby control site, identifying the organisms in these samples, and then using various
modeling techniques to determine the types and numbers of species that would be affected and
the effect on the local or regional population of marine organisms. The results help determine
what alternatives and mitigation measures are needed to avoid or minimize impacts.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 70
Three of the seventeen power plants along the California coast (Moss Landing, Morro Bay, and
Diablo Canyon) recently completed 316(b) or equivalent entrainment studies, and a study is
currently underway at Huntington Beach. These studies were done as part of the California
Energy Commissions review of proposed power plant upgrades and installation of new power
generating units. The studies helped update previous studies done in the 1970s and 80s and
established the existing baseline conditions at these facilities for purposes of their recent review.
The rest of the coastal power plants use studies also done about twenty-five years ago. These
older studies will need to be updated to address proposed changes at these power plants, such as
co-location of a desalination facility (see Chapter 5.1.3 for additional discussion). These older
studies are out-of-date for several reasons they describe physical or biological conditions that
may no longer exist, they were conducted using sampling techniques and modeling approaches
that do not reflect our current understanding of science and marine biology, and some were done
at locations far removed from the site of the power plant that may not reflect actual conditions at
the impact site. The state Desalination Task Force also recognized the need to update these
studies in one of its findings:

The appropriate State regulatory agencies
25
have indicated that the siting of a new
desalination facility, which utilizes any new or existing open water feedwater intakes, will
require a current assessment of entrainment and impingement impacts as part of the
environmental review and permitting process.

An entrainment study may be fairly extensive and may be required by several different agencies
as part of their permit reviews. Additionally, the findings of these types of studies may result in
substantial changes to how a proposed facility is designed, sited, or operated. Therefore, it
would be more effective and efficient for the studies to be done as part of a proposals initial
environmental review using protocols agreed upon by the various agencies. This would allow
entrainment impacts to be identified early in project review and allow necessary mitigation
measures to be incorporated into decision-makers deliberations.

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

There are two main approaches to avoid or minimize entrainment and impingement impacts.
The first is to use a subsurface intake, such as a beach well or infiltration gallery, which would
allow these impacts to be avoided entirely. Where subsurface intakes are infeasible, open water
intakes may be designed and located so that entrainment and impingement are reduced, but
usually not entirely eliminated.

Subsurface intakes: The primary way to avoid both impingement and entrainment is to use a
subsurface intake, such as a beachwell or infiltration gallery, rather than an intake that draws in
water directly from the water column. Because the way a desalination facility takes in water has
the most potential to affect marine biology, the feasibility of this alternative should be one of the
first considered during the conceptual design stage of a proposal, and will also likely be
evaluated during environmental review.

25
State agencies represented on the Task Force included the Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources
Control Board, a Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 71
Subsurface intakes, such as beach wells or infiltration galleries, are placed below the water
column and pull in seawater through the overlying substrate, which acts as a natural filter. At
least four of the existing desalination facilities along the coast use beach wells as their feedwater
system, and at least six of the currently proposed facilities are considering using beach wells.
Here in California, the largest existing subsurface intake for a desalination facility takes in less
than one million gallons per day, but elsewhere in the world, they provide up to 25 million
gallons per day.

The amount of water that can be taken in by subsurface intakes is a function of the type of
substrate, its permeability, and other geotechnical characteristics. Properly designed subsurface
systems are likely to completely eliminate impingement and entrainment impacts. Some can be
installed so they are completely below grade at or near beach areas, and some can be located at
some distance inland from the shoreline if water is available below the surface due to naturally
occurring or induced seawater intrusion. Designed with appropriate intake velocities and
installed at the proper depth within the substrate, beach wells or infiltration galleries can operate
with little, if any, noticeable effect on local marine life.

Subsurface intakes may offer additional operational advantages, such as reduced chemical use
and reduced operating costs. The natural filtering effect of the overlying substrate may provide a
buffer to changes in water quality due to storms or runoff. It may also provide some part of the
pre-treatment needed before the seawater goes through the desalination filters or membranes,
thus eliminating part of the chemical or physical treatment that would otherwise be required.
While subsurface intakes may have higher initial construction costs, they may result in long-term
operational savings due to their having fewer pre-treatment and chemical requirements. They
may also be able to operate during times when facilities with open water intakes would have to
shut down due to water conditions.

Additionally, there is some research available that suggests wells used to dewater areas below a
beach may provide some degree of shoreline stabilization
26
. While currently inconclusive, the
research suggests that beach wells may in some locations increase shoreline stability or accretion
rates, although it appears to depend on a number of site-specific characteristics related to the
depth to groundwater, presence of a coastal aquifer, amount of sediment transport, and others.

Subsurface intakes may not be feasible in all locations. They may not work well in areas where
the substrate is silt, clay, or unfractured rock. In areas with sandy substrates, the sand should be
relatively stable or deep enough to the intake is not exposed during seasonal sand movement or
storms, and should be permeable enough to allow seawater to be pumped through to the facility.
In some areas with less permeability, larger infiltration galleries or multiple beach wells may be
needed to pull in the desired amount of water. However, even in some areas where the existing
substrate may make a subsurface intake infeasible, an intake could be designed with an artificial

26
See, for example:
Turner, Ian L. and Stephen P. Leatherman. Beach Dewatering as a Soft Engineering Solution to Coastal Erosion
A History and Critical Review, J ournal of Coastal Research, Fall 1997.
and
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Field Evaluation/Demonstration of a
Multisegmented Dewatering System for Accreting Beach Sand in a High-Wave-Energy Environment. J uly 1988.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 72
substrate around the intake opening. For example, adding a concrete box around the opening of
a surface intake and filling it with sand or other suitable material could transform an otherwise
high entrainment intake to one with little or no entrainment. This contained cover system would
likely require more extensive design considerations and some ongoing monitoring, but may still
provide a feasible method to avoid all or most entrainment impacts.

Open water intakes: Where subsurface intakes are determined to be infeasible, the review of a
facility proposing to use an open water intake may require evaluation of numerous measures to
reduce adverse effects and may need to consider compensatory mitigation measures. For new or
modified intakes, this will likely require review under both the Coastal Acts marine
biology/water quality policies and its fill policy. [See Chapter 2.2.2.]

Mitigation measures to address impingement effects may be different from those meant for
entrainment effects. Three effective mitigation measures for impingement are:

! Low intake velocity rate: The amount of impingement at a facility is largely a function of the
intake water velocity. When intake velocities are kept below about 0.5 feet per second, fish
and other organisms are generally able to avoid being pulled in, or if they are pulled in, can
generally swim against the current and escape. The rate of 0.5 fps is considered a Best
Technology Available for purposes of Clean Water Act compliance. Facilities can be
designed and operated to keep the velocity at or below 0.5 fps through a combination of
pumping rates and intake design.

! Velocity caps: Fish are generally better able to detect a horizontal change in water velocity
than a vertical change. Many intake structures were built with openings that pull water in
from above, causing a change in velocity that fish cannot sense as well. Velocity caps, which
are structures usually made of concrete placed over the intake with a gap between the cap and
the intake, change the predominant intake water flow from vertical to horizontal.
Impingement rates often drop significantly after a velocity cap is added, and once installed,
they require very little ongoing maintenance.

! Screens, traveling screens, and fish return systems: Screens are generally sized to prevent
fish from entering an intake system while still allowing adequate water flow. Traveling
screens allow fish to be moved out of an intake system, often unharmed. They are generally
built at the landward end of an intake pipe, often in a forebay area, and are often built in
conjunction with a fish return system, which routes fish and part of the intake water back to
the source waterbody. These systems can be fairly effective in reducing impingement, but
require ongoing maintenance and personnel to operate them.

Mitigating entrainment effects is usually more difficult. The measures above are generally not
effective in minimizing entrainment, since the organisms subject to entrainment are too small to
be screened out without significantly reducing water flows into the intake system, and since they
are generally less responsive to changes in water velocity. Other structural measures, such as
aquatic filter barriers, are still considered experimental in the marine environment and may cause
substantial impacts on their own. Therefore, the primary mitigation approaches to minimize
entrainment impacts have been to first determine the least environmentally damaging location for
an intake and to then develop compensatory mitigation to make up for the lost marine life.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 73
Determining an appropriate location is necessary to reduce both entrainment and impingement.
This may require not only an entrainment study, but a study of currents, wave, and tidal patterns
and their relationship to nearby biologically important areas to use in designing the entrainment
study. The rates and types of entrainment vary significantly based on the location and depth of
the intake, as well as where the intake is sited in relation to areas of biological importance (e.g.,
at the mouth of a bay or estuary, near kelp beds, hard bottom habitat, or areas of upwelling, etc.).
Even after selecting the least environmentally damaging location and incorporating structural
mitigation measures, an open water intake has the potential to cause significant entrainment
effects, which in turn could require compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is
usually the last and least desired form of mitigation considered as part of mitigation
sequencing, which requires first that adverse effects be avoided and then minimized; then that
the affected environment be restored; and finally that impacts be compensated for by providing a
replacement or substitute resource or habitat. In the past, forms of mitigation have included fish
hatcheries, fishing limits, habitat enhancement, or other similar out-of-kind or offsite
measures.

Determining the necessary level of mitigation for most proposals would be based in part on
results of a 316(b) study or its equivalent. Developing such measures would require an extensive
evaluation of the impacts and determination of both the feasibility and effectiveness of making
up for the lost marine organisms. In some cases where significant entrainment effects remain
even after all structural mitigation measures have been provided, the impacts may be so
extensive as to make compensatory mitigation insufficient to adequately address the problem.
For example, a large facility pulling in tens of millions of gallons of water per day may cause
impacts that require dozens or hundreds of acres of habitat to replace the lost organisms or lost
biological functions. It is likely to be challenging to identify enough nearby suitable areas to
create, restore, or enhance the necessary amount of habitat value, and for some projects, this may
result in denial of a permit.

An additional and more recent concern with using compensatory mitigation for entrainment
impacts is due to a federal circuit court decision regarding cooling water intakes for power
plants. The court ruled that the Clean Water Act limits the use of such measures as mitigation
for those intake systems (see additional discussion in Chapter 5.1.3).

Another mitigation approach to reduce entrainment that is still under development is the use of
aquatic filter barriers. These systems consist of fine-screened mesh placed around the area of an
intake. To be effective in screening out organisms and at the same time allow enough water
through, some of these filters at larger facilities must be up to several hundred feet long. While
they have seen some use in riverine environments, they have not yet been proven effective in the
ocean environment. Additionally, due in part to their size, they create additional concerns that
would have to be addressed during review, including how they affect other uses in the water such
as navigation, and what would happen if they were to break away from their moorings.

One additional option that may be worthwhile is to retrofit an open water intake so that it
becomes a subsurface intake. This could be done by constructing a structure around the intake
opening that is filled with sand, cobble, or other material that prevents or reduces entrainment.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 74
WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Evaluate the feasibility of subsurface intakes: Given the potentially significant entrainment
impacts caused by open water intakes, this will likely be one of the main parts of reviewing
proposed desalination facilities. The default intake design should be one that does not cause
entrainment that is, a subsurface intake. The applicant for a proposed facility will likely bear
the burden of proof as to whether a subsurface intake is feasible.

The review may require information such as:

! A bathymetric survey of proposed intake locations and sub-bottom profiles showing location
and thickness of sand cover or other substrate over bedrock.
! Results of sediment core samples, including grain size, vertical and horizontal
transmissivity, the presence or absence of impermeable layers, etc.
! Written and graphic descriptions of historic and current seasonal beach profiles in the area
of a proposed intake, including post-storm profiles.
! Cost estimates and comparisons for constructing and operating surface and subsurface
intakes. This should include an evaluation of the operating cost advantages that may accrue
due to desalination facilities that use subsurface intakes requiring less pre-treatment than
those that use open-water intakes.
! Examination of regional sediment transport patterns, sediment sources and sinks, and an
analysis of the anticipated long-term stability of the substrate that would be used for the
intakes.
! Monitoring plan for ensuring stability of sand cover.
! Mitigation plan for potential sand loss (e.g., augment sand cover, deepen well, reduce intake
velocity, etc.).

In addition, where a standard subsurface intake is found to be infeasible, or in some cases, when
considering a retrofit of an existing open water intake, evaluate the potential for constructing and
maintaining artificial cover at the intake location by using a contained cover system with sand,
gravel, or cobble.

For open water intakes, determine the least environmentally damaging location and
mitigate the remaining entrainment and impingement effects: Where subsurface intakes are
determined to be infeasible, review will likely require several studies to determine what available
location is least damaging and what entrainment effects would still occur. The default protocols
for an entrainment study are those used in the 316(b) studies, though in some cases, different
study parameters may be proposed. In some cases, the review may be able to use other recent
and local entrainment data for example, a recently completed 316(b) study at a nearby site, if
applicable to the proposed desalination site. Other studies similar to the ones listed above for
subsurface intakes may be needed to identify locations with suitable substrates to support a
pipeline, acceptable sand movement and deposition patterns, and the like.





SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 75
Review should also evaluate potential structural and operational measures, including:

! Velocity caps: The intake structure should be designed so that water is pulled in horizontally
rather than vertically to allow fish to better sense the intake.
! Velocity rates: The facility should be designed so that the size of the pipeline and the pumps
result in a water velocity of less than 0.5 feet per second.
! Screens: These may include various types of screening devices, based on the type of
impingement impact identified for a facility. For example, a facility with a location and
design that results in very little impingement and no impingement of sensitive species may
have fewer concerns about screening than a facility with more significant impingement
impacts.
! Compensatory mitigation proposals: Proposed compensatory mitigation measures may
include a wide range of approaches from fish hatcheries to habitat replacement to
preservation of various types of areas depending on the effects being mitigated and the
available mitigation options. Proposed measures should consider such elements of a
mitigation plan as performance standard, contingencies for possible problems or failure of a
particular measure, and others.

All these mitigation measures should be developed in conjunction with the various regulatory
agencies involved in reviewing, permitting, or monitoring the facility. Some measures that may
be more desired by the proponent for example, certain compensatory mitigation measures
may be less acceptable to various agencies, so these issues should be worked out early in the
project review stage.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 76

5.1.2 EFFECTS OF DESALINATION DISCHARGES ON MARINE BIOLOGY
AND WATER QUALITY
The desalination process results in an effluent that is high in salts and that may contain various
contaminants, such as chemicals or cleaning compounds. The discharge also carries with it what
may be a large volume of biomass made up of the entrained organisms that were drawn through
the facility. Each of these constituents of the discharge is discussed below. There are also likely
to be other types of impacts when desalination discharges are combined with other discharges
from coastal power plants, wastewater treatment facilities, or others types of facilities (see the
discussion in Section 5.1.3 of issues related to co-located desalination facilities).

HIGH SALINITY

The ambient salinity of seawater varies due to seasonal changes, upwellings, or other natural
phenomena. Salinity in the Pacific Ocean off California, for example, averages about 33 parts
per thousand, with a typical variation of about plus or minus 10%. The discharge from a
desalination facility may locally increase salinity levels by up to 100%, or about double the
normal salinity level for seawater. Local marine species are usually adapted to an areas natural
salinity levels, but few, if any, are likely to be adapted to the increased salinity of a desalination
discharge. These species may also be adapted to the natural variation in salinity that occurs
seasonally or due to natural phenomena such as upwellings or freshwater inputs, but they may
not be adapted to sudden exposure of those same levels when not caused by natural event out of
season for example, an organism may be able to handle a gradual 10% salinity increase on a
seasonal basis but not sudden exposure to a plume with salinities of 10% above ambient
conditions. Even where a higher salinity level does not kill organisms directly, it may have
sublethal effects that stress them so that they are more susceptible to other stressors, such as
increased levels of other pollutants. Further, organisms may be sensitive to different salinity
levels based on their life stage for instance, an adult fish may not be harmed by a higher
salinity concentration or may be able to swim away from it, whereas the eggs, larvae, or
juveniles of the same species may be harmed at the same concentration.

CHEMICALS OR CLEANING COMPOUNDS

Seawater desalination facilities require a variety of chemicals and compounds to treat the water,
clean the desalting equipment, and prepare the desalted water for distribution through the water
supply system. Many of these compounds are neutralized or removed from the waste stream
before being discharged, though some may remain. Chemicals used during the desalination
process included chlorine, ozone, or other biocides, various coagulants, acids, antiscalants, and
others. Additionally, some materials used in the pipes, filters, or other structural elements of a
desalination facility may corrode during the desalination process and add metals or other
compounds to the discharge stream. Finally, compounds or elements that occur naturally in the
water column, or that may be present due to pollution, will be concentrated during the
desalination process and may be discharged at levels up to twice the concentration in the source
water.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 77
BIOMASS FROM ENTRAINED ORGANISMS

The desalination process involves either heating seawater or forcing it through membranes at
very high pressure, as described in the previous section of this report. Both processes generally
kill all of the organisms present in the seawater, and those dead organisms become part of the
facilitys discharge. At a large facility, this could result in a substantial amount of organic
material, which can cause water quality problems by itself or can provide a matrix for growing
bacteria and other organisms. This type of discharge can be harmful to human health.

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

There are a number of ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects caused by desalination
discharges, many of which can be used in combination. Mitigation measures that may be
evaluated during review include:

! Proper location: The discharge should be located in an area where it will not harm nearby
sensitive marine life. For example, discharges should be located well away from areas of
kelp, hard bottom habitat, or other areas where resident species may be more sensitive to
such changes in water quality.

! Subsurface outfalls: Similar to the benefits created by subsurface intakes, discharges from
subsurface outfalls may be buffered and diffused by passing through substrate before they
reach open water or the biologically active zone of the seafloor.

! Structural measures diffusers or multiport outfalls: These structural components allow
a discharge to be split into several streams or released over a larger area, resulting in quicker
diffusion in the receiving water.

! Minimizing chemical use or using alternative treatments: These include using non-
corrosive or less corrosive materials in the facility and adequately treating the chemicals
before discharge to ensure they are neutralized. The review of proposed facilities may also
consider the types and amounts of chemicals proposed to be used and evaluate whether there
are less persistent or less harmful chemicals or methods that would achieve the same
treatment purpose (e.g., using ultraviolet light instead of biocides).

! Wastewater treatment systems or on-land disposal: During some processes, such as
membrane cleaning, desalination facilities may generate wastes with contaminant
concentrations too high to be discharged to the ocean. Facilities can be designed to separate
these flows and send them to a wastewater treatment system, or to separate out many of the
solids removed from the seawater for disposal in a landfill. This same approach can be used
to separate constituents in the water column that might be concentrated during the
desalination process (e.g., copper or petroleum products as mentioned above), and disposed
of in ways other than discharge to the ocean.




SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 78
! Co-located or combined outfalls: In some cases, discharges from a desalination facility
may be combined with other existing discharges, such as the discharge from a wastewater
treatment system or a coastal power plant (see the following section of this report for
additional evaluation of co-location with power plants). Combining the two discharges may
result in fewer overall adverse effects compared to having separate discharges for example,
by allowing the high-saline desalination discharge to mix with a low-saline wastewater
discharge, the overall discharge may mix more readily with the ocean water, allowing it to
more quickly match background salinity levels. The degree to which the combined discharge
will mix will vary depending on the contribution of each facility to the overall discharge for
example, wastewater flows are generally much lower at night than during the day, so a
steady-state desalination discharge would provide a higher proportion of the overall amount
at night.

Ocean discharges will also be subject to review and permitting by the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards for an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit, and
will likely be subject to ongoing monitoring requirements.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

The review should include descriptions and analyses of:

! Ambient or background conditions, including daily and seasonal variations, the existing level
of water quality impairment, etc.
! Facility operating rates and discharge constituents at those rates.
! Types and amounts of chemicals and compounds used during the processes and maximum
expected concentrations in the discharge.
! Plume modeling showing areal extent of salinity ranges in various conditions (including
worst-case).
! Capacity of wastewater treatment or landfill to allow separation of solids or chemicals from
the discharge.
! Fate and transport modeling showing how the discharge would interact with the receiving
water.
! The worst-case situation i.e., the conditions during which the facility would have the
greatest adverse effects for example, when the facility operates at full capacity with during
an ebb tide and no or low currents so that very little mixing occurs.
! Marine organisms present and how they would be affected by salinity changes, including
how the affects may vary by life stage.

For combined discharges, in addition to the above considerations, the review should describe the
typical operating conditions for each facility and the amount of flow each would contribute to the
overall discharge at various operating configurations. The worst-case scenarios for a
combined discharge will also likely require identifying the highest and lowest levels of salinity
and other contaminants that could reasonably occur during various operating conditions and the
environmental characteristics of the receiving waters.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 79
5.1.3 ISSUES RELATED TO CO-LOCATING DESALINATION FACILITIES
AT COASTAL POWER PLANTS

Main Points:
! Desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with coastal power plants using once-
through cooling would link providing water supply with what in many cases may be an
out-of-date and environmentally harmful technique.
! Most proposals for co-located desalination facilities will need updated entrainment studies,
since most coastal power plants do not have current entrainment data.
! Review under the Coastal Act will require identifying, at minimum, the incremental
impacts caused by the desalination facility beyond those caused by the power plant.

The largest desalination facilities currently being considered in California are proposing to use
the cooling water intakes and outfalls of existing coastal power plants. While there may be a
number of operational advantages when desalination facilities co-locate with power plants, there
are also some unique and potentially significant issues and adverse environmental impacts
different from those that would be evaluated for an independently-sited desalination facility
27
.

Most coastal power plants using a once-through cooling system were designed and sited
several decades ago when environmental issues were not as much of a concern as they are today
and when the adverse effects of once-through cooling were not as well understood. Many of the
intakes and outfalls are located in areas that would likely not be acceptable under current
requirements, due to their significant impacts on the marine biological community or their
contribution to water quality problems. Additionally, many of these power plants have never
gone through a comprehensive environmental review such as that required under CEQA and
have not been evaluated for Coastal Act conformity.


27
Many of these advantages and disadvantages of co-location are recognized in the findings and recommendations
of the state Desalination Task Force, which include:

! Advantages of co-locating desalination facilities with coastal power plants using once-through cooling may
include: compatible land use, use of the existing infrastructure for feedwater intake and brine discharge,
location security, use of the warmed power plant cooling water as the feedwater for the desalination facility,
reduction of the power plant discharge thermal plume, and the potential to purchase power from the host power
plant at prices below retail rates.

! Co-locating a desalination facility with a coastal power plant may provide a justification for the continued use
of once-through cooling technology. Once through cooling technology has well-documented environmental
impacts, including impacts on marine organisms.

! The appropriate State regulatory agencies have indicated that the siting of a new desalination facility, which
utilizes any new or existing open water feedwater intakes, will require a current assessment of entrainment and
impingement impacts as part of the environmental reivew and permitting process.

! For proposed desalination facilities co-locating with power plants, analyze the impacts of the desalination
facility operations apart from the operations of the co-located facilities. This will identify the impacts of the
desalination facility operations when there are reductions in cooling water quantities. This recommendation is
not intended to dictate California Environmental Quality Act alternatives that must be evaluated.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 80
Even recognizing that existing baseline environmental conditions are, in part, a result of decades
of power plant operation, the ongoing adverse impacts of these cooling water systems can be
significant. Coastal power plants typically take in several hundred million gallons of seawater
per day, with some taking in over a billion gallons each day. This is a significant amount of
water by almost any measure for example, a 500 million gallon per day cooling system takes in
enough water each day to cover over two square miles of land one foot deep. When this amount
of water is translated into habitat value, with densities of hundreds or thousands of organisms per
cubic foot of water, this translates into a substantial loss of marine life, especially in areas where
biological productivity may have already been reduced by other stressors or in important habitats
such as estuarine or nearshore areas.

ADVANTAGES OF CO-LOCATION

Co-location is seen by many as providing several advantages, including:

! Water use: Most of the water used by a co-located desalination facility would be water also
used by the power plant. For some such proposals, the incremental entrainment and
impingement caused by the desalination facility might result overall in fewer additional
impacts to the marine environment than a similarly sized desalination facility sited
independently and drawing in water from its own intake system. This will require case-by-
case evaluation, however, and would vary by location and by how each facility is operated.

! Shared discharge: The high salinity discharge from the desalination facility could be mixed
with what would usually be a much higher volume of cooling water from the power plant.
This would allow some salinity dilution before the combined discharge enters the ocean.

! Use of existing intakes and outfalls: By using the power plants existing intake and outfall
structures, there would be no need for additional inwater structures.

! Available electricity: The power plant could provide much of the energy used by the
desalination facility, which could allow the desalination facility to be built with less need to
increase transmission capability elsewhere on the energy grid. Additionally, in some cases, a
co-located desalination facility may be able to pay less for the electricity due to low or no
transmission costs.

! Use of an existing industrial site and associated infrastructure: Where a co-located
desalination facility is located entirely within an existing power plant site, it may use much of
the existing infrastructure needed for a desalination facility such as parking, security, etc.
that is already in place. This could result in overall fewer impacts by having two facilities
share an existing site rather than develop a new site. Additionally, many desalination
facilities are likely to be relatively small in scale compared to the power plants, so their
visual impacts may be subordinate to the existing visual effects of the power plants.

! Existing data and studies: For those power plants with up-to-date environmental studies,
the proposed desalination facility could be reviewed based in part on those studies.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 81
DISADVANTAGES AND CONCERNS

Along with these advantages, proposed co-location raises several concerns that are different from
those involving independently-sited desalination facilities. Review for conformity to Coastal Act
policies is likely to be different for proposed co-located desalination facilities than for facilities
using their own intake or outfall structures. Several types of these issues are discussed below.

Entrainment, Impingement, and Discharges: One of the advantages sometimes cited for co-
location is that a desalination facility would cause no additional entrainment or impingement
beyond that already caused by the power plant. This is rarely likely to be the case, as the
desalination facility would probably cause additional impacts for several reasons:

! Design and Location: Most of Californias coastal power plant intakes were sited several
decades ago in what were not necessarily the least environmentally harmful locations. Their
designs and locations do not reflect current understanding of the effects of once-through
cooling on the marine biological community. Some of their cooling water intakes are located
in areas where the biological resources have been, and continue to be, entrained at very high
rates. A co-located desalination facility using these intakes would likely continue and
increase entrainment or impingement impacts at rates that might otherwise not occur at a
facility that was sited based on current environmental information or that found it feasible to
use a subsurface intake. Facilities proposing to co-locate should not presume that joint use of
the cooling system is the best available alternative, but should conduct the necessary
feasibility study to determine whether subsurface intakes would work in the area.

! Characteristics of Combined Operations: The particular operating relationship between a
desalination facility and a power plant will affect their combined entrainment/impingement
rate. This can take several forms:

o A desalination facility may result in an increase in power plant operations that would not
otherwise be needed for example, a desalination facility operating twenty-four hours a
day may require a power plant to operate at times when it would otherwise be shut down
or operate at lower capacity due to lack of energy demand. It typically takes from 15,000
to 40,000 gallons of cooling water to produce a megawatt of electricity, and about 13
megawatts of electricity to produce a million gallons of desalted water. Therefore, a 25
million gallon per day desalination facility would require the power plant to pull in about
five to 13 million gallons of cooling water each day to produce the electricity necessary
to process the 50 million gallons of source water needed for the desalination process.

o When a power plant is not producing electricity and therefore does not need water for
cooling, it usually continues to pull in some amount of water to keep the intake, outfall,
and various condenser components from fouling. During these times, entrained
organisms may be subject to pressure changes but not thermal changes as they pass
through the cooling water system, which may allow some higher percentage of these
organisms to live. However, desalination facilities that are operating at these times could
cause organisms that might otherwise survive to perish due to their coming into contact
with the desalination filtering or pre-treatment systems.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 82
o At some facilities, cooling water from the power plant condensers may be too hot for the
desalination equipment, and the facility will have to pull in additional seawater that
bypasses the power plant and allows the power plant discharge to be cooled to a
temperature that does not damage the desalination filters and membranes.

Project review, therefore, should identify how the operations of the two facilities will be
coordinated. Desalination facilities located at power plants that produce a baseload supply of
electricity and operate continually will likely create fewer additional entrainment impacts
than those located at power plants that usually operate only during peak energy demands.
The review should also identify the amount of time the power plant is shut down for various
lengths of time due to maintenance requirements or market conditions. At power plants with
multiple generating units and multiple intakes for those units, the review for the desalination
facility may also identify whether it is feasible to locate the facility at the intake that operates
the most (i.e., the intake providing water for the most efficient power generating unit).

The review will need to reflect the existing conditions at the power plant, which will likely
be based on representative operations at or near the time of the review. If, as in many cases,
the power plant has generally operated at less than full capacity, existing conditions would
likely be based on this actual level of operation rather than its maximum permitted output.

Adequate review will also depend on the recency and adequacy of entrainment data at the
power plant. Entrainment studies for most of the states coastal power plants date from the
1970s and 1980s, and the data from these studies generally do not adequately identify the
existing and ongoing level of impact caused by the power plants once-through cooling
system, and do not accurately describe the existing environmental conditions as required
under CEQA and the Coastal Act. These studies do not reflect more recent improvements in
sampling protocols, species identification, and modeling methods, and are not based on our
improved scientific understanding of marine ecosystems. Additionally, while most power
plants have been reviewed at various times for conformity to state and federal water quality
standards, many have not been reviewed for conformity to Coastal Act policies or CEQA
28
.
In such cases, there may be no baseline of environmental effects that can be used for
Coastal Act review, although, data collected as part of a recent entrainment study under the
Energy Commissions CEQA-equivalent review may serve as an appropriate baseline.

! Temporary or permanent change in power plant operations: As power plants undergo
review for proposed new generating units, new requirements may result in replacement of
their once-through cooling systems with systems that are less harmful to the marine
environment, such as dry cooling, recycled or reclaimed water, or other methods. The U.S.
EPA recently adopted rules related to the allowable level of adverse entrainment and
impingement effects associated with once-through cooling. These new rules require
significant reductions in entrainment and impingement rates, which could reduce the
advantages of co-location if the power plants must make significant design or operational
changes to the power plant to decrease their cooling water use.

28
Older power plants that have undergone review only for NPDES discharge permits also may not have established
appropriate baseline conditions for CEQA, since the NPDES permit review for existing discharges is exempt from
CEQA requirements (per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15263 Discharge Requirements).

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 83
! Thermal discharges: In addition to the discharge characteristics discussed in the previous
section of this report high salinity, chemicals, and biomass review of a combined
discharge must consider the thermal discharge from a power plants cooling system. Most
coastal power plants are allowed to discharge water up to 20
o
F over the ambient ocean water
temperature, with some having higher permit limits. The effect of combining a desalination
discharge with this higher temperature discharge from the power plant will vary based on the
operational characteristics of the two facilities, but could result in effects significantly
different than those created by the power plant discharge alone.

COASTAL-DEPENDENCY

Some sites along the coast, including those of many existing coastal power plants, are designated
in the applicable certified Local Coastal Program for coastal-dependent uses. Unless a
desalination processing facility proposed for such a site is determined to be coastal-dependent, it
may require a change in the land use designation to allow it to be sited there. The intake and
outfall proposed to be used by the desalination facility are more likely to be considered coastal-
dependent than the facilitys processing units are. [See also Chapter 2.2.2.]

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Along with the need for recent and applicable entrainment/impingement data, it is likely that
most, if not all, the reviews for desalination facilities proposing to co-locate with power plants
will need to distinguish between the power plant operating by itself and the two facilities
operating together. The desalination facility will very likely operate on its own at some time
during its operating life, due to power plant shutdowns for maintenance or other reasons. The
review will include determining what effects the facility causes when it operates on its own, what
incremental effects it may cause above and beyond those of the power plant when they are both
operating, and may also involve partitioning responsibility for the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures between the two facilities. This might best occur during CEQA review as
part of a reasonable worst case evaluation of entrainment and discharge effects, or could be
done during review for a coastal development permit. Once the incremental increase in
entrainment and impingement is known, it can be compared to the effects that would occur at
other available locations or that would result from using other intake methods.

Review of facilities proposing to co-locate will also likely include an evaluation of the combined
effect of their discharges. This will likely include a determination of salinity effects, effects of
combining the chemical and biological discharges of a desalination facility with the thermal
discharge of the power plant, and other synchronistic effects that may occur.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 84
5.2 OTHER COASTAL ACT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, many Coastal Act policies are likely to apply to
desalination facilities in a manner similar to how they apply to other facilities. These policies
include those discussed below. Many of the studies and considerations necessary when
reviewing a proposed project for conformity to these policies may be done earlier than Coastal
Act review, either during CEQA or during the initial conceptual design stage of a proposal.
Early consideration of these issues may result in fewer changes later in the review and permitting
processes.

5.2.1 SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

Coastal Act section 30232 states:

Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous
substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such
materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided
for accidental spills that do occur.

This policy includes two primary requirements first, that developments protect against spills;
and second, that developments include effective measures to clean up spills should they occur.
Desalination facilities will likely be subject to spill prevention, response, and cleanup
requirements similar to those for other industrial facilities in the coastal zone. Many of the
chemicals that desalination facilities will use for water treatment, membrane cleaning, and other
purposes, are toxic. Spills or releases could cause significant biological damage and in some
cases, severe risk to human health. Since many facilities are proposed to be located on or near
the shoreline, or at locations with easy access to the water, they will be required to develop a
comprehensive spill prevention and response plan.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

The primary requirement will be submittal of an acceptable spill response plan. For proposals to
co-locate a desalination facility with other existing facilities such as power plants or wastewater
treatment plants, the existing spill plan for that plant may only need to be updated to incorporate
issues related to the desalination facility.

5.2.2 HAZARDS AND EROSION

Coastal Act section 30253 states, in part:

New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly
to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any
way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural
landforms along bluffs and cliffs

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 85
This policy essentially requires that the risks at proposed locations due to various hazards be
considered as part of project review and that the location and design of a proposed development
include measures to minimize those risks. Desalination facilities should either be sited where
risks associated with these hazards are minimal or be designed to reduce those risks. Review
under this policy also requires a determination that the development will not require protective
devices in the future.

Additionally, Coastal Act 30235 will likely apply to desalination facilities proposing to locate
near the shoreline:

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and
1other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when
required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches
in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on
local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation
contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where
feasible.

This policy describes situations where shoreline stabilization structures may be allowed.
Generally, these structures may be permitted for coastal-dependent uses or for existing
developments in danger from erosion, but not for new facilities. The policy also limits these
structures where they are required to protect existing development, not when such structures
might be needed at some point in the future.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Review of desalination facilities is likely to require studies related to site geology, hydrology,
and erosion, including identifying likely seismic events, the potential for tsunamis, liquefaction,
shoreline erosion, and other hazards common in coastal areas. Review for facilities proposing to
locate near the shoreline may also require studies to determine the rate of shoreline erosion in the
area to anticipate whether shoreline protective devices might be needed to protect the facility
during its operating life. These reviews may result in all or part of a facility being relocated at
alternative sites or at alternative locations within a site.

5.2.3 UPLAND HABITATS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
HABITAT AREAS (ESHAS)

Coastal Act Section 30240 states:

(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed
within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks
and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those
habitat and recreation areas.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 86
The review will likely evaluate the physical and biological effects of the proposed facility on
surface water sources, riparian and wetland communities, special habitat sites, and other similar
areas with high environmental values.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Facilities should be located and designed to avoid sites in and near with sensitive habitat areas.
Studies needed during review will likely include biological surveys and descriptions of nearby
wetlands, coastal scrub-shrub habitats, and other habitat types recognized as deserving of special
protections. For facilities proposing to locate near such habitats, mitigation measures to avoid
and reduce potential adverse effects should be evaluated, including controlling runoff from the
facility, reducing glare from facility lighting, housing machinery within sound-dampening
materials to reduce noise impacts, and other similar measures.

5.2.4 VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES

Proposed desalination facilities along the coast will be subject to Coastal Act section 30251:

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration
of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas,
and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California
Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and
Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

This policy establishes four requirements related to the visual and scenic quality of proposed
developments:

1) Permitted development must be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean
and scenic coastal areas.
2) The development must minimize the alteration of natural landforms.
3) It must be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas.
4) In visually degraded areas and where feasible, the development must restore and enhance
visual quality. This requirement includes a three-part test:
a) Is the area visually degraded?;
b) If so, are there measures that would restore or enhance visual quality?; and,
c) If so, are those measures feasible?

This review will likely include determining which locations within a site result in the fewest
visual impacts. Measures meant to reduce a facilitys visual impacts may also have other
beneficial results for example, putting equipment within buildings or behind screens may
reduce the amount of maintenance and repair that would be necessary if the equipment were
exposed to salt air or coastal winds. These considerations would likely be a part of a
determination of feasibility for those facilities in visually degraded areas.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 87
WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

For coastal desalination facilities, review is likely to include the following considerations:

! Determine the views that will be affected by the proposed facility.
! Determine measures that will protect those views, such as restricting the height of the
facility, selecting colors that will not detract from the views, placing elements of the facility
that are visually chaotic (e.g., unscreened industrial equipment, machinery, pipes and
tubing, etc.) either inside, behind architectural screens, or behind vegetation, and other
similar measures.
! Determine whether the facility is compatible with other nearby uses or facilities.
! If the area is considered visually degraded, determine what feasible measures are available to
restore or enhance the areas visual qualities, which may include measures that go beyond
just screening a facility from view.
5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Coastal Act includes several policies requiring the evaluation of a proposed developments
cumulative effects, including Section 30250(a), which states, in part:

New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in
this division, shall be locatedwhere it will not have significant adverse effects, either
individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.

The Act defines cumulative effects in Section 30105.5
29
:

Cumulatively or cumulative effects means the incremental effects of an individual
project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

Coastal desalination facilities are likely to raise substantial and complex concerns about
cumulative impacts. Different elements of a desalination facility its location, its service area,
its design and operational characteristics can contribute to different types of cumulative
impacts associated with the full range of coastal resources environmental, visual, public access,
and many others. For example, regarding environmental concerns, the most likely cumulative
impact analysis needed will be related to marine biology and water quality. Many coastal areas,
nearshore waters, and marine ecosystems are significantly degraded due to existing levels of
impacts caused by a wide variety of stressors the effects of development, pollutant discharges,
natural or synthetic shifts in local species diversity, global climatic changes, and other

29
Note: The Coastal Act definition is broader than than the definition under CEQA Section 15355, which states:
"Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place
over a period of time.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 88
conditions. Seawater intakes can also contribute to cumulative impacts, especially in areas of the
coast that may be subject to the effects of other intake structures. The growth associated with a
desalination facility may also need to be reviewed for potential cumulative impacts, although in
some cases, this analysis may have been done to some degree as part of a local or regional
planning document.

One significant question related to cumulative impacts that may arise for some proposals is
whether a single large-scale facility has more or fewer cumulative impacts than several smaller-
scale desalination facilities. Like many of the issues identified in this report, it may be best to
address this question thoroughly early in the design process of proposed facilities so that
significant changes arent required later.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

While the particular aspects of the necessary cumulative impact analysis will vary by facility and
location, there are several that will likely be common to all or most proposed facilities.
Examples include:

! Marine Biology/Water Quality: The review should consider, for example, the effects of
nearby intakes or outfalls of various types on an areas marine biological resources and water
quality, as well as the likely effects of the proposed facility on the existing conditions in the
affected waterbody.

! Growth-related: For some proposed projects, this will require a relatively uncomplicated
assessment for instance, where a relatively small facility is providing water to a limited
service area with a known allowable level of build-out. For other projects, assessing growth-
related cumulative impacts may be much more complicated and may be, for many potential
impacts, inconclusive. The types of impacts to be considered may range from assessing the
effects of additional runoff reaching coastal waters, additional traffic and its affects on
coastal access, the need for additional infrastructure to support that growth, and others.

! Power production: for large-scale facilities, the amount of power required to produce the
desalinated water may create substantial demands on local power sources, resulting in
additional air or water pollution. The review of such facilities should assess the impacts
associated with this additional power production and identify ways to minimize those
impacts.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 89
CHAPTER 6: OTHER REGULATIONS AND PERMITS

Chapter Sections:
6.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
6.2 Agencies With Jurisdiction (including Local, Regional, State, and Federal)

Main Points:
! Only after other local and state permits and approvals are received can a coastal
development permit application be considered complete.
! Early coordination among project applicants and the various agencies will likely result in
a more efficient review process.

Seawater desalination facilities raise issues related not only to coastal resources, but also related
to public health, drinking water supply and safety, cost, energy use, land use, and others. As
such, these facilities will be subject to regulations, review, and permit approval by a number of
agencies. Each facility will need to conform to a different set of regulations, based on its design
and location, and based on the local, state, and federal requirements that apply to it.

For purposes of review by the Coastal Commission, an applicant will need to provide other local
and state permits or preliminary approvals before their coastal development permit application is
considered complete. This generally results in the Commissions coastal development permit
being the last of the local and state permits to be reviewed, and allows the Commissions review
to benefit from knowing more complete details about a proposed project, what conditions may
have been imposed by other agencies, and what measures may be incorporated into the project
that affect coastal resources.

The discussion below provides a general overview of the permits that will most likely be
necessary for coastal desalination facilities. Given the number of regulations involved in siting
such a proposal a facility meant to provide drinking water located in an area subject to high
public scrutiny it may be important for project proponents and the various involved agencies to
coordinate closely with each other and with the interested public. For the review process to be
both effective and efficient, there will likely need to be open distribution of information among
the various parties to allow issues of common interest to be identified and resolved early in the
process rather than later.
6.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Desalination facilities are likely to require comprehensive environmental review under CEQA,
most likely through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. With the number of
agencies involved in desalination and the number of permits likely to be required, it is important
to have a thorough and comprehensive CEQA review. Reviews for many permits, including
coastal development permits, often require more detailed information than might be provided
during CEQA; however, if agencies are involved in the CEQA review early and thoroughly, and
much of the information they need is provided as part of that review, it may result in a more
efficient and shorter decision-making process overall for a proposed facility.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 90
TABLE 4: PERMITS/APPROVALS LIKELY REQUIRED FOR A COASTAL
DESALINATION FACILITY
AGENCY PERMIT OR APPROVAL NOTES
Federal:
Army Corps of Engineers ! Section 404 permit
! Section 10 permit
! To place fill in navigable waters.
! To place a structure in navigable
waters.
Coast Guard Consultation with Corps
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Endangered Species Act, Section
7 consultation
For federal permits that may affect
endangered species.

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Permits and/or consultation For projects in national marine
sanctuaries.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act, Section
7 consultation
For federal permits that may affect
endangered species.

State:
Coastal Commission ! Coastal Development Permit

! Consistency with Coastal
Zone Management Program
! For projects affecting coastal
waters.
! For projects requiring federal
permits and approvals.
Department of Fish & Game ! Stream Alteration Agreement
! California Endangered
Species Act

Department of Health
Services
! State Safe Drinking Water
Act
! Federal Surface Water
Treatment Rule

Department of Parks &
Recreation
Approval for facilities within or
near state parks

Department of
Transportation
Encroachment permit For utilities crossing state highways.
Department of Water
Resources
Approval for use of state water
conveyance facilities.

Public Utilities Commission Regulates water services, rates,
and service areas.

State Lands Commission Land Use Lease
State Water Resources
Control Board / Regional
Water Quality Control
Boards
! Water quality certification
! NPDES permit

Local & Regional:
City or County / Local
utilities / Water Management
Districts
These will vary by local jurisdiction and may include building permits,
health department certifications, operating permits, or other types of
approvals.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 91
6.2 AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION
The list below includes agencies, laws, and regulations that are most likely to be involved in
reviewing desalination proposals, along with a brief description of how they are likely to be
involved.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL JURISDICTIONS

Each local jurisdiction has unique review, permit, and approval requirements. Facilities will be
subject to local zoning requirements, land use ordinances, growth management objectives, and
other similar approvals, and will need to meet local requirements for public notices, public
hearings, appeals, and other similar requirements. Permits needed may include grading permits,
building permits, approval from the local fire marshal, and the like. Other local or regional
permits may be required from air pollution control agencies, water districts, local utilities, and
city or county health departments.

Generally, desalination facilities will need a coastal development permit from both the local
jurisdiction, if it has a certified Local Coastal Program, as well as from the Coastal Commission.
In such cases, the local governments jurisdiction generally includes most upland areas within
the coastal zone, while the Coastal Commissions retained jurisdiction includes areas near
coastal waters, areas below the mean high tide line, and other areas
30
. Additionally, some
desalination facilities will be located within the Coastal Commissions appeal jurisdiction
31
. In
these situations, a local jurisdictions decision on a coastal development permit may be appealed
to the Coastal Commission. In such cases, the Coastal Commission may review the appeal to
determine whether the local decision conforms to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal
Program.

STATE

Desalination facilities will likely require permits or approvals from the state agencies listed
below. Unless otherwise noted, these approvals are generally required before the coastal
development permit application to the Coastal Commission is considered complete.

30
Coastal Act Section 30601: Prior to certification of the local coastal program and, where applicable, in addition to
a permit from local government pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 30600, a coastal development permit
shall be obtained from the commission for any of the following:
1) Developments between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland
extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater
distance.
2) Developments not included within paragraph (1) located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands,
within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal
bluff.
3) Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility.

31
The Commissions appeal jurisdiction varies by locale, but is generally with 300 feet of mean high tide or
between the sea and the first public road, within 300 feet of the top of coastal bluffs, within 100 feet of wetlands,
streams, and other areas. Additionally, Coastal Act section 30603 provides the Commission with appeal jurisdiction
over major energy facilities and major public works projects, so local decisions on most desalination facilities are
likely to be appealable to the Commission, regardless of their location in the coastal zone.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 92

State Lands Commission: The State Lands Commission manages most of the states tidelands
and lands lying under coastal waters. Desalination facilities proposing to place new intakes or
outfalls on state tidelands, or to change the use of existing intakes and outfalls, will generally be
required to obtain a lease or lease modification from the Commission.

In some coastal areas, the state has granted tidelands to a local jurisdiction. Coastal development
permit applications to build structures in these areas will need to include a lease from the local
jurisdiction. In these areas, the local jurisdictions lease decision may be subject to review and
approval by the State Lands Commission.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs): The SWRCB is responsible for allocating water rights within California
and establishing many of the states water quality protection measures. Nine Regional Boards
develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans in particular regions of
the state.

! Water Rights: The SWRCB reviews and authorizes water rights in California, which are
required for consumptive uses from enclosed water bodies within the state. Water rights are
likely not needed for proposed desalination facilities using water from the open ocean, but
may be needed by facilities proposing to use water from enclosed or semi-enclosed areas,
such as bays or estuaries, or saline groundwater. Applicants and lead agencies should contact
the State Board to determine whether a specific proposal will require a water right.

! Water Quality: The State Board and its nine Regional Boards share key responsibilities for
implementing the states water quality requirements. The State Board establishes statewide
standards, including the states Ocean Plan, and hears appeals of Regional Board decisions.
Each of the states nine Regional Boards is responsible for water quality permitting within its
region. Parts of six Regional Boards are located along the California Coast and would
regulate the discharges of desalination facilities within their jurisdiction. The two most
common RWQCB permits likely to be needed for a coastal desalination facility are a water
quality certification and a discharge permit:

# Section 401 water quality certification: This permit is required when proposing to place
fill in a waterbody. It is issued by the state in conjunction with a Section 404 permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see below). Fill includes intake or outfall
pipelines, beach wells, transmission lines, or other similar structures. Desalination
facilities involving new intakes or outfalls or requiring modification of existing outfalls
are likely to require a 401 water quality certification.

# National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit: allows pollutants to
be discharged to waters of the U.S. Desalination facilities proposing a new outfall will
likely need a new NPDES permit. For desalination facilities proposing to use existing
outfalls at already-permitted facilities, such as power plants or wastewater treatment
facilities, the RWQCB may choose to modify the existing permit or may require a new
permit. [For a discussion of impacts related to discharges, see Chapter 5.1.2.]

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 93
NPDES permits almost exclusively regulate the discharge of pollutants from point
sources, such as industrial effluent from an outfall pipe or stormwater from a municipal
storm system. The primary exception applicable to coastal desalination facilities is that
NPDES permits are also used to regulate intakes used by thermal power plants that use
ocean water for cooling. An NPDES permit for these facilities must determine that these
systems use the best technology available to minimize adverse impacts due to their
location, design, construction, and capacity. Desalination facilities proposing to co-locate
with these types of power plants may therefore be subject to NPDES requirements
associated with their intakes.

! Coordination between the Coastal Commission and the State/Regional Boards: The
Coastal Commission often works with the Regional Boards to coordinate review when there
is shared jurisdiction of proposed projects. Although the State and Regional Boards operate
primarily under the California Water Code while the Coastal Commission acts pursuant to
the Coastal Act, there are several areas of shared responsibility and common requirements.
For example, both the Commission and the Boards are directed to maintain and restore
coastal waters, although the focus and implementation of each agency in carrying out this
directive may differ. Additionally, Section 30412 of the Coastal Act establishes some
common policies for the Commission and the State and Regional Boards and also recognizes
some of the different aspects of their jurisdictions.

For many projects, including proposed desalination facilities, the Commission and Boards
may require similar information during project review. For some aspects of a proposal,
however, the Coastal Commission may require some information not requested by a
Regional Board, in part because the Coastal Act has different requirements and because
Coastal Act review is equivalent to CEQA, while the NPDES review process is exempt from
CEQA. For proposed coastal desalination facilities, it may be best for a project applicant to
request that the involved agencies identify the applicable standards, necessary studies, and
likely requirements as early in the proposal process as possible, either during environmental
review or even earlier during conceptual design of a proposed facility, to allow better
coordination by all the involved parties.

Energy Commission: For desalination facilities proposing to locate at power plants, the Energy
Commission is likely to review proposed changes to the power plant needed to accommodate the
desalination facility. Some of those changes may require approval from the Energy
Commission. The review may also evaluate the effects of the desalination facility on the power
plants operations, its effect, if any, on the local or regional transmission lines, and other aspects
of the desalination facilitys impact on energy use.

Department of Fish and Game: The Department requires a stream alteration permit for
activities within inland waters and within some areas of bays and estuaries. It also reviews
projects for potential impacts to listed species.

Public Utilities Commission (PUC): Desalination facilities may be subject to water rates
established by the PUC. The PUC also establishes service areas for water districts, so water
provided by a desalination facility may be subject to limits on where it can be sent and the price
that may be set.
SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 94
Department of Health Services: Equipment and processes used in desalination facilities will
likely be subject to review and approval for use as drinking water. This review may include
specific performance standards for construction and operation of a facility, evaluation of the
integrity of equipment used at the facility, determining the required response by the facility
operator to various problems, and other requirements.

Other: Other state permits may be required, depending on the facility location, from the state
Departments of Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Boating and Waterways, and others.

FEDERAL

Coast Guard: Structures in navigable waters, such as intake and outfall pipelines, may require
approval to ensure they dont adversely affect navigation. The Coast Guard may also require
buoys or markers to be maintained over the structures. The applicant may also be required to
submit information about the structures to include on nautical charts.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A desalination facility may require a Section 404 permit from
the Corps if it involves placing fill in navigable waters, and a Section 10 permit if the proposal
involves placing a structure in a navigable waterway.

National Marine Fisheries Service and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Facilities may
require review from these services for their potential effects on endangered, threatened, or other
sensitive species. They may also require review for effects on protected marine mammals and
migratory birds.

Other: Other permits may also be required from the federal Bureau of Reclamation,
Environmental Protection Agency, Minerals Management Service, and others.

WHATS LIKELY NEEDED DURING REVIEW?

Local and state approvals must be submitted as part of a complete coastal development permit
application. Additionally, the applicant must provide the lease or approval of the landowner for
the proposed project. For some projects, this will require approval from the upland landowner as
well as from the State Lands Commission for portions of the project on state tidelands.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bay, Steven M. Investigation of Desalination Plant Toxicity. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, September 1993.

Buros, O.K. The ABCs of Desalting. International Desalination Association, February 2000.

California Coastal Commission. Seawater Desalination in California, October 1993.

California Department of Water Resources. The California Water Plan Update: Bulletin 160-98,
J anuary 1998.

_____. The California Water Plan Update 2003: Bulletin 160-03, J une 2003.

_____. Issue Papers of the Desalination Task Force, October 2003

_____. Water Desalination in California: Findings and Recommendations, October 2003.

California Resources Agency. Californias Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future, March
1997.

California State Lands Commission. Public Trust Policy for the California State Lands
Commission, adopted September 17, 2001 (see
http://www.slc.ca.gov/Policy%20Statements/Policy_Statements_Home.htm).

California State Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy and State Legislation.
Various analyses and fact sheets, 2003.

Caplan, Ruth. Trading Away Our Water: How Trade Agreements Promote Corporate Water
Profiteering. Alliance for Democracy, Washington D.C., n.d.

Fairfax, Dr. Sally. Trusts and the Public Trust Doctrine, a speech given at the Tomales Bay
Institute, November 14, 2000.

Gleick, Dr. Peter. The Human Right to Water. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, J uly 1999.

Gleick, Dr. Peter, Gary Wolff, Elizabeth Chalecki, and Rachel Reyes. The New Economy of
Water: The Risks and Benefits of Globalization and Privatization of Fresh Water. Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, February 2002.

Gleick, Dr. Peter, Gary Wolff, and Dan Haasz. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban
Water Conservation in California. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment,
and Security, November 2003.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 96
Holt, Tim. The Next War May Be Over Water, from High Country News, J anuary 12, 2004.

Lattemann, Sabine, and Thomas Hpner. Seawater Desalination Impacts of Brine and
Chemical Discharge on the Marine Environment. Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the
Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Germany, April 2003.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Request for Proposals for Participation in
the Seawater Desalination Program, RFP No. WRM-3, November 28, 2001.

National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Critical Choices: The Debate Over Public-
Private Partnerships and What it Means for Americas Future, 2003.

_____. For the Good of the People: Using Public-Private Partnerships To Meet Americas
Essential Needs, n.d.

Ofiara, Douglas and J oseph J . Seneca. Economic Losses from Marine Pollution: A Handbook
for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 2001.

Pew Oceans Commission. Americas Living Oceans Report: Charting a Course for Sea Change,
J une 2003.

San Diego County Water Authority. 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. November 2000.

Shrybman, Steven. Thirst for Control. Council of Canadians, J anuary 2002.

Turner, Ian L. and Stephen P. Leatherman. Beach Dewatering as a Soft Engineering Solution
to Coastal Erosion A History and Critical Review, J ournal of Coastal Research, Fall 1997.

Urban Water Council. Public/Private Partnerships in Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems:
Case Studies of Selected Cities. United States Conference of Mayors, February 2000.

Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Field Evaluation/Demonstration
of a Multisegmented Dewatering System for Accreting Beach Sand in a High-Wave-Energy
Environment, J uly 1988.

Western Water. Tapping the Worlds Largest Reservoir: Desalination. Water Education
Foundation, J anuary/February 2003.

Yamada, Robert R., J ack K. Laughlin, and Dennis K. Wood. Co-located seawater
desalination/power facilities: practical and institutional issues. In Desalination, 102 (pp. 279-
286), Elsevier Publishing. 1995.


SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 97
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

Acre-foot (AF): A unit for measuring the volume of water. One acre-foot equals 325,851
gallons (the volume of water that will cover one acre to a depth of one foot). One million gallons
equals 3.07 acre-feet.

Biocide: A chemical used to kill biological organisms (e.g., chlorine).

Brackish water: Water with salt concentrations of between 5 and 20 parts per thousand (ppt).
Seawater generally has salt concentrations of greater than 20 ppt.

Brine: Water that contains a high concentration of salt. Brine discharges from desalination
plants may include constituents used in pretreatment processes, in addition to the high salt
concentration seawater.

Coagulation: A pretreatment process used in some desalination plants. A substance (e.g., ferric
chloride) is added to a solution to cause certain elements to thicken into a coherent mass, so that
they may be removed.

Cogeneration: A power plant that is designed to conserve energy by using "waste heat" from
generating electricity for another purpose.

Distillation: A process of desalination where the intake water is heated to produce steam. The
steam is then condensed to produce product water with low salt concentration.

Entrainment: Entrainment occurs when small organisms, such as plankton, larvae, and fish
eggs, are drawn into a water intake past any screening equipment and are subjected to pressure or
temperature changes. Entrainment is generally considered to result in the death of all the
entrained organisms, if not immediately, then shortly after they are discharged back into the
environment where they become prey for other animals.

Feedwater: Water fed to the desalination equipment. This can be source water with or without
pretreatment.

Impingement: Impingement occurs when fish and other aquatic organisms are trapped against
screens used in intake systems. Impingement usually results in either injury or death to the
organisms, although some systems include features that allow some individuals to be moved
away from the screens unharmed.

Infiltration Gallery: A structure used to draw in water using perforated pipes buried below land
or below the bottom surface of a water body. Water in the saturated zone of the substrate is
pulled into the perforated pipes.



SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 98
Kilowatt (kW): A thousand watts. The watt is a measure of power used by electricity generating
plants. One watt is equivalent to 1 J oule/second or 3.4127 Btu/hour.

Megawatt (MW): A million watts.

Minimize: To reduce to the smallest possible level.

Mitigate: The California Environmental Quality Act (at Section 15370) defines mitigation and
the sequence of mitigation as:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Reverse Osmosis (RO): A process of desalination where pressure is applied continuously to the
feedwater, forcing water molecules through a semipermeable membrane. Water that passes
through the membrane leaves the unit as product water; most of the dissolved impurities remain
behind and are discharged in a waste stream.

Total Dissolved Solids (tds): Total salt and calcium carbonate concentration in a sample of
water, usually expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm). The state-
recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) drinking water standard for total dissolved
solids is 500 mg/L, the upper MCL is 1,000 mg/L, and the short-term permitted level is 1,500
mg/L. Seawater contains roughly 30,000 mg/L.

SEAWATER DESALINATION AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
MARCH 2004

Page 99
[this page intentionally blank]