Advertisement

Poseidon’s desalination plant proposal again debated at State Lands Commission meeting

Share

The long debate over Poseidon Water’s controversial proposal to build a desalination plant in Huntington Beach continued Wednesday, with critics demanding a more careful study of the potential environmental problems posed by the facility.

About 50 people gathered at the Central Library for a meeting called by the California State Lands Commission, which was seeking input on a supplement that it is preparing to the 2010 environmental impact report on the project.

The supplement would address the environmental impact of a screen and diffuser added to the intake and outflow pipes, respectively. Both are meant to reduce harm to marine life.

Advertisement

Poseidon included the attachments in its plan in September 2015 after a new regulation was added to the California water code requiring the technology in order to mitigate environmental issues, Poseidon Water Vice President Scott Maloni said Thursday.

Among other speakers, Richard Armendariz, a member of the Huntington Beach nonprofit Residents for Responsible Desalination, said he was skeptical that a screen would adequately protect sea life from entering the system.

Some residents felt the pipes were worrisome because they were over 50 years old. The proposed $1-billion desalination facility would be built next to the AES power plant at Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway and rely in part on its infrastructure.

Garry Brown, founder of the Orange County-based environmental group Coastkeeper, said Thursday that even with the additions, larval fish will still be sucked into the pipes.

“It’s not much of an improvement,” he said.

The screen would have 1 millimeter segments to prevent “valuable marine life” from entering the pipe, said Susan Lee, a scientist for Aspen Environmental Group, an Agoura Hills-based environmental consulting company hired by the State Lands Commission to conduct the supplemental EIR.

She described the diffuser as a part with six openings that would allow the saltwater leaving the plant to better mix with the ocean — or diffuse into it — since it would be sprayed in multiple directions.

Lee said the returning saltwater is especially briny after it is separated in the desalination process and that if doesn’t mix well when it returns to the ocean, the high concentrations could harm marine life.

Despite public concerns, Maloni believes the attachments will help prevent damage to marine life.

He said the company determined that the open-faced intake pipe called for previously in the plan would take in about two fish eggs for every 1,000 gallons of water, an amount he characterized as small. He said the amount would be even smaller with a screen in place.

Some speakers at the meeting said the plant is unnecessary, a common refrain.

Mandy Sackett, representing the Surfrider Foundation, said Orange County is no longer in need of the amount of water that Poseidon’s plant will offer, 50 million gallons of water per day.

Staley Prom, also of Surfrider, said a new, more comprehensive EIR needs to be done to take into account the changes that have occurred since the existing report was produced in 2010. Prom said a supplement was insufficient. Echoing Sackett, she said the change in demand for water needs to be noted in the new report.

After the meeting, city planning commissioner Dan Kalmick said he too believes that the State Lands Commission needs to conduct an more extensive EIR and forget the supplement.

Kalmick said he was concerned that ongoing projects in the area, such as the toxic cleanup at the Ascon landfill, will only increase the chance of environmental calamity in the area.

Kalmick also said he was concerned that the plant will be built in an area that is projected to be flooded by 2050, according to the city’s general plan.

In agreement with the Surfrider representatives, Kalmick said the area where the plant would be based doesn’t have as high a demand for water as when the original EIR was conducted.

Maloni said Poseidon has minimized the environmental impact of its plan with the new proposal so a full EIR is not required by law.

Cy Oggins, State Lands Commission division chief, said the agency will evaluate all public comments and make a decision on how best to proceed.

Oggins said the group will be looking into the possible changes that have occurred in the area since the last EIR was conducted nearly seven years ago. He cited the age of the AES pipes as a definite concern.

Concerned residents may send their comments by email until Dec. 21 to CEQA.comments@slc.ca.gov or by mail to Cy R. Oggins, California State Lands Commission, 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-S., Sacramento, CA 95825.

benjamin.brazil@latimes.com

Twitter: @benbrazilpilot

Advertisement