***WATER REUSE CP***
1nc
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
development of water recycling technology.
Water recycling can solve scarcity - California proves
Cooley, Director of the Pacific Institute’s Water Program, june 2014
Heather, (She conducts and oversees research on an array of water issues, such as the
connections between water and energy, sustainable water use and management, and
the hydrologic impacts of climate change. As a Pacific Institute staff member, Ms.
Cooley has authored numerous scientific papers and co-authored five books, including
The World’s Water, A 21st Century U.S. Water Policy, and The Water-Energy Nexus in
the American West.) (“Water Reuse Potential in California” online:
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/06/ca-water-reuse.pdf)
For this analysis, we assumed that the technical potential for water reuse in California is
equivalent to the state’s indoor water use. While it is unlikely that we will soon reuse
all of the water used in our homes, much of this water could be captured and reused
onsite or treated at a municipal wastewater treatment plant and distributed as recycled
water. On the basis of data from DWR for 2001–2010, we estimated that indoor water
use in California averages 4.2 million acre-feet per year. By implementing indoor
efficiency improvements, indoor use could decline by 40 to 54 percent, thereby
reducing the amount of water available for reuse. We therefore estimated that the
water reuse potential is equivalent to our estimate of efficient indoor water use and
ranges from 1.9 million to 2.5 million acre-feet per year (Heberger et al. 2014).
Approximately 64 percent of the water reuse potential is from residences; the
remainder is from commercial businesses and institutions (21 percent) and industry (15
percent). Some of this reuse is already occurring. According to the most recent state
survey, current recycled water use in California is 670,000 acre-feet per year (SWRCB
and DWR 2012). Thus, the potential for additional water reuse in California today is 1.2
million to 1.8 million acre-feet per year. Two-thirds of the reuse potential is in coastal
areas where wastewater is discharged into the ocean or into rivers that drain directly
into the ocean. In these areas, expanding water reuse may provide water supply and
water quality benefits. We estimated that 0.9 million to 1.1 million acre-feet per year
could be reused in coastal areas. The remainder of the reuse potential (0.3 million to 0.7
million acre-feet per year) is in inland areas. While water reuse may not produce new
supply in these areas because that water may already be reused by a downstream user,
it can improve the reliability of water supplies, and by replacing the use of potable
water, provide energy savings and environmental benefits, such as, requiring less
water to be extracted from rivers and streams. This is a conservative estimate for
several reasons. First, it assumed a high degree of indoor water efficiency. In reality,
indoor water efficiency is unlikely to reach its full technical potential, and thus the reuse
potential may be higher. Second, it did not take into account population growth, which
can increase the amount of wastewater produced and thus the reuse potential. Third,
it assumed that all of this water is reused for irrigation or some other consumptive use
and thus can be reused only once. However, if that water is used inside a home or
business or to recharge a groundwater aquifer, it may be possible to reuse the water
several times.2 Finally, we did not include inflow and infiltration, which refer to
rainwater and groundwater that enter the sanitary sewer system through cracked pipes,
leaky manholes, or improperly connected storm drains and roof gutter downspouts and
is transported to the wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated and discharged.
Thus, the water reuse potential is likely to be higher. ConClusions Water reuse provides
a reliable, local water supply that reduces vulnerability to droughts and other watersupply constraints. It can also provide economic and environmental benefits, for
example by reducing energy use, diversions from rivers and streams, and pollution
from wastewater discharges. There is tremendous opportunity to expand water reuse
in California. We estimate that the water reuse potential in California, beyond what has
already been achieved, ranges from 1.2 million to 1.8 million acre-feet per year. Twothirds of the reuse potential is in coastal areas where wastewater is discharged into the
ocean or into streams that drain into the ocean. In these areas, expanding water reuse
may provide both water supply and water quality benefits
Water Reuse CP—2NC Solvency Wall
Water recycling solves - water scarcity
Reusing Water Solves Scarcity and Reduces Water Costs
Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., no date
“The Wealth of Waste The economics of wastewater use in agriculture” online:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/FAO_WR35_Summary_1709
2010.pdf
Reuse as a response to water scarcity Many regions of the world are experiencing growing
water stress. This arises from a relentless growth of demand for water in the face of static,
or diminishing, supply and periodic droughts due to climatic factors. Water stress is also
caused by pollution from increasing amounts of wastewater from expanding cities, much of it
only partially treated, and from the contamination of aquifers from various sources. Such
water pollution makes scarcity worse by reducing the amount of freshwater that is safe to
use. Water scarcity in all its aspects has serious economic, social and even political costs. At
times of serious scarcity, national authorities are inclined to divert water from farmers to
cities since water has a higher economic value in urban and industrial use than for most
agricultural purposes. In these circumstances, the use of reclaimed water in agriculture
enables freshwater to be exchanged for more economically and socially valuable
purposes, while providing farmers with reliable and nutrient-rich water. This exchange also
has potential environmental benefits, reducing the pollution of wastewater downstream and
allowing the assimilation of its nutrients into plants. Recycling water can potentially offer a
“triple dividend” - to urban users, farmers and the environment. Reclaimed water use can
help to mitigate the damaging effects of local water scarcity. It is not the only option for
bringing supply and demand into a better balance – and WR35 shows how different
options can be analysed for comparison – but in many cases it is a cost-effective solution,
as the growing number of reuse schemes in different parts of the world testify. A recent
comprehensive survey found over 3,300 water reclamation facilities worldwide.
Agriculture is the predominant user of reclaimed water, and its use for this purpose has
been reported in around 50 countries, on 10% of all irrigated land. Benefits of reus The
feasibility of reuse will depend on local circumstances, which will affect the balance of
costs and benefits. The major benefit in most cases is likely to be the value of the fresh
water exchanged for high-value urban or industrial use. This would lessen the cost for
municipal authorities of seeking their supplies through more expensive means. In addition,
reuse prevents untreated wastewater discharge to coastal and groundwater systems with
ecosystem and tourism benefits. Depending on the local situation, there could also be
benefits to farmers if they can avoid some of the costs of pumping groundwater, while the
nutrient present in the wastewater could save some of the expense of fertilizer. There could
also be benefits to the local environment from reduced flows of untreated wastewater –
though the interruption in the downstream water cycle could have other, less beneficial,
effects. Costs of reuse The costs of the reuse option could include the installation or
upgrade of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to produce effluent of the desired
standard, any addition or modification to the infrastructure for water and reclaimed
water distribution, the extra recurrent costs of treatment, and the cost of any produce
restrictions imposed by the use of reclaimed water in irrigation. Where climatic and
geographical features are suitable, low-cost treatment of wastewater may be an option
through the use of stabilisation ponds, constructed wetlands, etc. The net cost of treatment
may also be reduced through the reuse of biogas for energy and power in the intensive
treatment processes, or potentially through the sale of carbon offsets
A2
A2: hurts environment
Water Reuse Helps Environment, controls water, supplies ecosystems with water, and
reduces pollution
McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013
(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Recycling and Reuse: The
Environmental Benefits” online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)
In addition to providing a dependable, locally-controlled water supply, water recycling
provides tremendous environmental benefits. By providing an additional source of
water, water recycling can help us find ways to decrease the diversion of water from
sensitive ecosystems. Other benefits include decreasing wastewater discharges and
reducing and preventing pollution. Recycled water can also be used to create or
enhance wetlands and riparian habitats.
Increases Water Flow, Decreases Water Discharge to Ecosystems, and Much More.
McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013
(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Recycling and Reuse: The
Environmental Benefits” online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)
Water Recycling Can Decrease Diversion of Freshwater from Sensitive Ecosystems
Plants, wildlife, and fish depend on sufficient water flows to their habitats to live and
reproduce. The lack of adequate flow, as a result of diversion for agricultural, urban,
and industrial purposes, can cause deterioration of water quality and ecosystem
health. People who reuse water can supplement their demands by using a reliable
source of recycled water, which can free considerable amounts of water for the
environment and increase flows to vital ecosystems. Water Recycling Decreases
Discharge to Sensitive Water Bodies In some cases, the impetus for water recycling
comes not from a water supply need, but from a need to eliminate or decrease
wastewater discharge to the ocean, an estuary, or a stream. For example, high volumes
of treated wastewater discharged from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant into the south San Francisco Bay threatened the area's natural salt water
marsh. In response, a $140 million recycling project was completed in 1997. The South
Bay Water Recycling Program has the capacity to provide 21 million gallons per day of
recycled water for use in irrigation and industry. By avoiding the conversion of salt
water marsh to brackish marsh, the habitat for two endangered species can be
protected. Recycled Water May Be Used to Create or Enhance Wetlands and Riparian
(Stream) Habitats. Wetlands provide many benefits, which include wildlife and
wildfowl habitat, water quality improvement, flood diminishment, and fisheries
breeding grounds. For streams that have been impaired or dried from water diversion,
water flow can be augmented with recycled water to sustain and improve the aquatic
and wildlife habitat. Water Recycling Can Reduce and Prevent Pollution When
pollutant discharges to oceans, rivers, and other water bodies are curtailed, the
pollutant loadings to these bodies are decreased. Moreover, in some cases, substances
that can be pollutants when discharged to a body of water can be beneficially reused for
irrigation. For example, recycled water may contain higher levels of nutrients, such as
nitrogen, than potable water. Application of recycled water for agricultural and
landscape irrigation can provide an additional source of nutrients and lessen the need
to apply synthetic fertilizers.
Recycling Water is More Energy Efficient Than Water Desalination and Provides
More Water for Less Energy
McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013
(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Recycling and Reuse: The
Environmental Benefits” online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)
Recycling Water Can Save Energy As the demand for water grows, more water is
extracted, treated, and transported sometimes over great distances which can require
a lot of energy. If the local source of water is ground water, the level of ground water
becomes lower as more water is removed and this increases the energy required to
pump the water to the surface. Recycling water on site or nearby reduces the energy
needed to move water longer distances or pump water from deep within an aquifer.
Tailoring water quality to a specific water use also reduces the energy needed to treat
water. The water quality required to flush a toilet is less stringent than the water
quality needed for drinking water and requires less energy to achieve. Using recycled
water that is of lower quality for uses that don’t require high quality water saves
energy and money by reducing treatment requirements. Reusing water to save energy
is more thoroughly discussed in the California Energy Commission’s 2005 report:
California's Water - Energy Relationship (CEC#700-2005-011-SF). This report highlights
the large amount of energy required to treat and distribute water. Energy is required
first in collecting, extracting, conveying, and distributing water to end users and
second in treating and disposing of the wastewater once the end users have finished
with it. Although it requires additional energy to treat wastewater for recycling, the
amount of energy required to treat and/or transport other sources of water is
generally much greater.
Water Reuse is More Beneficial – Safer, Provides More Water, Saves Energy, and Costs
less.
McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013
(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Recycling and Reuse: The
Environmental Benefits” online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)
How Can Recycled Water Benefit Us? Recycled water can satisfy most water demands,
as long as it is adequately treated to ensure water quality appropriate for the use. The
Treatment and Uses chart shows types of treatment processes and suggested uses at
each level of treatment. In uses where there is a greater chance of human exposure to
the water, more treatment is required. As for any water source that is not properly
treated, health problems could arise from drinking or being exposed to recycled water if
it contains disease-causing organisms or other contaminants. EPA regulates many
aspects of wastewater treatment and drinking water quality, and the majority of states
in the US have established criteria or guidelines for the beneficial use of recycled water.
In addition EPA developed a technical document entitled Guidelines for Water Reuse
(PDF) (28pp, 614K) About PDF) which contains a summary of state requirements, and
guidelines for the treatment and uses of recycled water. State and Federal regulatory
oversight has successfully provided a framework to ensure the safety of the many
water recycling projects that have been developed in the United States. Recycled
water is most commonly used for non-potable (not for drinking) purposes, such as
agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. Other non-potable
applications include cooling water for power plants and oil refineries, industrial process
water for such facilities as paper mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust control,
construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial lakes. Although most water
recycling projects have been developed to meet non-potable water demands, a number
of projects use recycled water indirectly for potable purposes. These projects include
recharging ground water aquifers and augmenting surface water reservoirs with
recycled water. In ground water recharge projects, recycled water can be spread or
injected into ground water aquifers to augment ground water supplies, and to prevent
salt water intrusion in coastal areas. For example, since 1976, the Water Factory 21
Direct Injection Project, located in Orange County, California, has been injecting highly
treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent salt water intrusion, while
augmenting the potable ground water supply. While numerous successful ground water
recharge projects have been operated for many years, planned augmentation of surface
water reservoirs has been less common. However, there are some existing projects and
others in the planning stages. For example, since 1978, the upper Occoquan Sewage
Authority has been discharging recycled water into a stream above Occoquan Reservoir,
a potable water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia. In San Diego, California, the
Indirect Potable Reuse Reservoir Augmentation Project is currently being studied. If
deemed technically feasible and approved by the City Council and Mayor, this project
would augment the San Vicente Reservoir with 12,000 acre-feet per year of recycled
water treated at a new Advanced Water Treatment Plant. The use of gray water at
decentralized sites (see definition) for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing reduces
the amount of potable water distributed to these sites, the amount of fertilizer
needed, and the amount of wastewater generated, transported, and treated at
wastewater treatment facilities. In other words, water reuse saves water, energy, and
money. Decentralized water reuse systems are being used more in the arid west where
long term drought conditions exist. Successful gray water systems have been operating
for many years,. They can meet up to 50% of a property's water needs by supplying
water for landscaping. Recycling gray water saves fresh potable water for other uses,
reduces the volume of wastewater going to septic systems and wastewater treatment
plants, and increases infrastructure capacity for new users.
Waste Disposal Will Be Banned
Moristen and Carsten, contributors to The Independent, October 2011
(Sarah and Paul, online: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/unclose-to-ban-on-wests-toxic-waste-exports-2374685.html)
A UN environmental conference in Cartagena, Colombia, attended by more than 170
countries, has agreed to accelerate a global ban on the export of hazardous waste, including
old electronics and discarded computers and mobile phones, from developed to
developing countries. Environmental campaigners, who have been battling to broker a
deal on the dumping of toxic waste for more than 20 years, said they were "ecstatic"
about this "major breakthrough". Kevin Stairs, Greenpeace's EU chemicals policy
director, told The Independent on Sunday: "This is a great breakthrough for the
environment and human health. Finally, the way forward into forcing developed
countries to assume responsibility for their own hazardous waste and stop shipping it to
developing countries has been agreed. "All forms of hazardous waste including that sent for
recycling, to obsolete electronic waste, will be banned from leaving wealthy countries
destined for developing countries."
A2: Spending Links
No Link to Spending - Costs Are Lower
Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., no date
“The Wealth of Waste The economics of wastewater use in agriculture” online:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/FAO_WR35_Summary_1709
2010.pdf
Economic justification The economic appraisal of the project should be from a regional
basin viewpoint, comparing its economic costs and benefits. Judging by the evidence of
our case studies, it is unlikely that schemes could be economically justified with
reference only to agriculture. Although farmers may be net beneficiaries from using
treated wastewater, compared with their previous or alternative sources of water, this
depends very much on local circumstances, and in any event their net benefits are
unlikely to offset the full costs of the scheme. On the other hand, the benefits to urban
and industrial users could be relatively sizeable, and in most cases would be the
principal justification for the project. The net impact of the project on the local and
downstream environment will also be very site-specific, and there are likely to be both
benefits and costs. Financial feasibility Once the basic economic justification of the
project is established, the next step is to examine its financial feasibility. The
distribution of the costs and benefits of the project between different stakeholders is
crucial to its feasibility. Its impact on the finances of the various stakeholders – national
government, regional water authority, farmers, municipal utility and/or other major
players – should be assessed. Financial gainers and payers should be identified to gauge
the incentives, or conversely the penalties, to be applied and the type of funding that
would be appropriate. Water charges, taxes, subsidies, soft loans, environmental service
payments, and other instruments could all form part of the financing proposals. A
planning framework The economic framework for wastewater reuse is intended to fit
within a comprehensive planning framework. A sound and methodical planning
approach will assist in identifying all the relevant factors necessary for the decision to
proceed with a project. WR35 presents such a planning framework, its key elements
being: identification of problem and project objectives; definition of study area and
background information; market assessment and market assurances; identification of
project alternatives; appraisal and ranking of project alternatives; and implementation.
Among the major specific technical issues to be addressed are: facilities and
infrastructure, balancing supply and demand, wastewater quality, and public health
risks and safeguards. Factors essential for the success of reuse projects The feasibility
of reuse projects hinges on several key factors. The physical and geographical features
of the area should be conducive to an exchange of water rights between the parties
concerned. The extra costs (of treatment and infrastructure) should be affordable in
relation to benefits. Farmers should be supportive, which depends on the net impact on
their incomes, the status of their rights to freshwater, and what are their alternatives.
Public health authorities should be satisfied that the projects pose no undue risks,
after reasonable precautions have been taken. Finally, the environmental impact
should be acceptable: the same impact may be acceptable or not in different
circumstances, and different authorities will place a different weight on specific impacts
in forming an overall judgement. A reality check – case studies from Spain and Mexico
On a global scale, only a small proportion of treated wastewater is currently used for
agriculture, but the practice is growing in many countries, and in some regions a high
proportion of reclaimed water is used in irrigation. The variety of case material
presented from Spain and Mexico provides a good field testing of Methodologies of
Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effective Analyses. The case study results demonstrates that the
methodology presented for appraising wastewater reuse projects is viable. Although
the Cost-Benefit Analysis analytical framework is well able to incorporate the interests
of municipalities and farmers, there is an important third party at the table – the
environment – which needs a champion and a custodian. Reflecting the needs of the
environment, valuing its assets and services, and ensuring that its financing needs are
met, is a challenge to analysts in this area. The case studies confirm that reuse is an area
ripe for the application and refinement of the tools of environmental cost-benefit
analysis. The case material demonstrates that certain items of costs and benefits are
more robust than others. On the cost side, the capital costs of treatment units, pumps
and canals can be estimated with high confidence, and their operating costs (pumping,
chemicals, labour, etc.) are also fairly evident. The technology of wastewater
treatment and its future level of unit costs are liable to change, and future options
should not be prematurely foreclosed. Most of the case studies stress the perceived
benefits to farmers from the nutrient properties of effluent, plus savings in groundwater
pumping and the greater reliability of effluent compared with other sources of water in
arid and semi-arid climates. While pumping costs are reasonably firm, the benefits of
fertilization depend on local empirical evidence (“with and without project”). The value
of reliable wastewater also needs to be demonstrated more convincingly, e.g., by a
closer study of farmers’ response behavior where water supply is erratic or scarce.
From the viewpoint of urban water demand, the case studies reflect the widespread
view that water supply tariffs are too low, hence there is a pervasive underestimation of
the benefits created by developing new solutions to growing demand. However, some
of the cases illustrate the importance of distinguishing genuinely new benefits, on the
one hand, from the avoided costs of meeting existing demand in a different way. The
analysis of the case studies has implications for policy towards the use of reclaimed
water, depending on what its principal objectives are: • as a feasible and costeffective means of meeting the growing demands of agriculture for water in regions of
growing water scarcity and competition for its use. This motive also applies in
situations where demand is not necessarily rising, but where periodic water scarcity is a
problem for farmers planning their annual crop patterns. The case studies contain
evidence (revealed preferences) of farmers responding positively to the use of effluent
in these situations, as a temporary expedient or long term solution. However, effluent
reuse is one amongst a number of options at farm level to minimizing exposure to water
risk. Moreover, the creation of expensive distribution and storage facilities, with a high
recurrent cost, in order to furnish water for low value farm purposes, is not always
warranted – unless there are benefits to other sectors. • as an environmental solution
to the growing volume of wastewater effluent and its potential for downstream
pollution. The Mexico City-Tula case is the clearest example of the mutual benefit for
the City and farmers from disposing of urban sewage and effluent to agriculture – and
allowing natural processes to carry out some of the purification en route. Reuse
schemes allow the dispersion of effluent and its assimilation across a wide area, as
compared to the point source pollution from WWTPs. The reuse of effluent nutrients in
crop production, rather than their removal and effective destruction during advanced
processes of wastewater treatment also has a strong appeal to many Greens. The case
studies confirm these environmental benefits of using reclaimed water. • as a “winwin” project that is a solution to urban water demand, while also delivering the
agricultural and environmental benefits stated above. The Llobregat sites and Durango
City are clear-cut examples of potential win-win propositions since in both cases it is
physically and geographically feasible for farmers to exchange their current
entitlements to freshwater for effluent, and for the cities to gain access to the
freshwater rights that are thus “released.” Whether or not “win-win” outcomes occur
depends on legal and other barriers being overcome, as well as successful negotiation
over the financial arrangements between the parties to the deal. It must not be
assumed that farmers will readily give up their rights to freshwater, without further
consideration of their operational situations. Most farmers prefer to have several water
sources as insurance against drought. A cost-benefit approach helps to set the
parameters for agreements between the main stakeholders, which in this report are
assumed to be farmers, cities and the natural environment. It helps to define the
interests of the parties in moving towards, or resisting, agreements that change the
status quo. Where the balance between costs and benefits for one party (e.g. farmers)
is very fine, the existence of a large potential net benefit to another (e.g. city or
environment) can provide “headroom” for agreement by indicating the economic or
financial bounty available to lubricate the deal. The overall message the report seeks
to convey is that the recycling of urban wastewater is a key link in Integrated Water
Resource Management (IWRM) that can fulfill several different, but interrelated
objectives. These are expressed as win-win propositions, delivering simultaneous
benefits to farmers, cities and natural environmental systems, part of the solutions to
the urgent global problems of food, clean water, the safe disposal of wastes and the
protection of vital aquatic ecosystems. The traditional “linear society” is not a
sustainable solution and the “circular society” has to become the new standard. WR35
is based and contains an extensive bibliography, testimony to the large and growing
interest amongst the professional and policy communities in this important topic.
Water Reuse is Cheap
Water Reuse Association, January 2012
“WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION DESALINATION COMMITTEE Seawater Desalination Costs”
online:
https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Pape
r.pdf
One of the most sensitive and critical aspects of any water project is cost. For
membrane desalination, decreasing costs and producing superior water quality are
among a number of significant reasons why this technology continues to be the water
treatment technology of choice in the United States and around the world. This white
paper serves to: provide an overview of cost drivers and components of the desalination
process; present costs associated with desalination compared to other water supply
alternatives; discuss challenges and perceptions; and highlight recent advances in
desalination technology that affect the total delivered cost of water. Although
membrane desalination was first commercialized in the United States in the late 1960’s,
reverse osmosis membrane technology was not widely implemented until the 1980’s,
largely due to the relatively high costs compared to other potable water treatment
alternatives. Why have these costs decreased or appeared more reasonable and
competitive over time? Although there are a number of reasons, the reduction in costs
are primarily related to improvements in manufacturing methods, the changing facets
of the regulatory environment in the United States, the increased market demand and
competition for membranes, and the gradual depletion of more conventional
groundwater sources. Since the early 1990’s, one example of the successful
implementation of reverse osmosis desalination technology is its designation as a “best
available technology” (BAT) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) for removal (and/or reduction) of numerous inorganic contaminants (e.g.,
antimony, arsenic, barium, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, boron, selenium, radionuclides),
endocrine disrupting compounds (e.g., synthetic and natural hormones), and several
pharmaceutical compounds. Together with a reduction in the membrane technology
costs beginning in the 1980’s, BAT designation became one other (albeit significant)
technical component to consider in the process of developing and potentially
implementing a desalination facility. Other decision factors are rooted in both technical
and non-technical components of water supply projects such as timing, available space,
and other specific locally-driven concerns. However, the determination of meaningful
costs associated with membrane (including seawater membrane) desalination has
proven a bit more elusive when applied without consideration of site specific issues or
how the costs compare with other viable, reliable, and long-term water supply
alternatives in the same locale.
A2: potential health risks
Monitoring drinking solves
HAL, Horticulture Australia Limited, no date
(“What are the potential risks associated with recycled water?” online:
http://www.recycledwater.com.au/index.php?id=69)
Other risks which require monitoring A broad range of chemicals have been identified as
having the potential to alter normal endocrine function in animals, i.e. endocrine
disrupting chemicals (EDCs). At this stage, there is no evidence that environmental
exposure to low levels of potential EDCs (potentially present in recycled water) affects
human health because of the relatively low exposure. However, ongoing monitoring is
required to ensure good risk management. Pharmaceutical chemicals and their
metabolites, potentially found in recycled water, raise similar issues to EDCs (above).
Health impacts from pharmaceuticals should also be minimal because of the relatively
low exposure. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure good risk
management.
New Recycling Technologies are Cleaner Than Tap Water
Monks, 10:46 AM EDT, Thu May 1, 2014
Kieron (“From toilet to tap: Getting a taste for drinking recycled waste water” online:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/from-toilet-to-tap-water/#)
But the introduction of reuse systems has been difficult, with a high degree of public
skepticism. Orange County began recycling water for non-potable use in the 1970s,
but only began contributing to the drinking supply in 2008, combined with a
comprehensive PR and education campaign to allay public fears. Operators now feel the
system is well established and ready to scale up. "It's a watershed moment right now,
we're seeing widespread acceptance of these technologies," OCWD General Manager
Mike Markus said. "As the shortages become more extreme and water supplies are
cut, it has raised awareness that we need to find alternative resources." The process
works by re-routing a proportion of the 1.3 billion gallons of waste water generated in
Southern California each day into a three-step treatment. The first is microfiltration of
the treated waste water to remove solids, oils and bacteria, before the resulting liquid
goes through reverse osmosis, pushing it through a fine plastic membrane that filters
out viruses and pharmaceuticals. The water is then treated with UV light to remove any
remaining organic compounds, before joining the main groundwater supply, which must
pass strict quality controls to meet legal standards, and distribution to households. The
OCWD says the water exceeds all state and federal drinking water standards. Safety
has also been established in pioneering projects around the world. Water-insecure
Singapore, previously reliant on imports, now delivers 30% of its needs through the
NEWater reclamation facility. Although only a small amount is added to its reservoirs,
the output surpasses WHO standards for potable use to the extent that a high
proportion is directed for industrial uses requiring ultra-clean water. One of the world's
earliest schemes, in Windhoek, Namibia, has been in operation since 1968 and has
tackled both shortage and water-borne diseases. Over half of the Sub Saharan African
population faces water insecurity, and the greatest health risk, diarrhea, kills over a
million people each year in the region. But research showed that in the 1970s disease
occurred at lower rates for people supplied by the Windhoek plant than through
conventional treated sources. "Standards are stricter because of the novelty of the
technology and process," says Benedito Braga, President of the World Water Council.
"The quality from sewage is very good, as good or better than the tap water in any city
in the developed world." The message is now being heeded and the model is spreading.
California has put $1 billion into funding recycling for potable use ($800 million of that
in low-interest loans), with new initiatives launched in Los Angeles, San Francisco and
San Diego. Texas, parts of which are also severely affected by drought, aims to generate
10% of all new supplies through reclaimed water by 2060. A facility in Big Spring has
introduced the first "Direct Potable Reuse" scheme in the United States by sending
recycled water to the final treatment plant without passing it through groundwater
reserves.
A2 nutrient pollution
Management of Nutrients is Key to Solving Nutrient Pollution and it Occurs in
The Status Quo Anyway
EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 16, 2014
(“The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture” online:
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture)
Farming operations can contribute to nutrient pollution when not properly managed.
Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are
the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients
can impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and
phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into ground waters. Fertilized soils and
livestock can be significant sources of gaseous, nitrogen-based compounds like
ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to aquatic life if large
amounts are deposited to surface waters. Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas.
There are many ways that agricultural operations can reduce nutrient pollution,
including: Watershed efforts: The collaboration of a wide range of people and
organizations often across an entire watershed is vital to reducing nutrient pollution.
State governments, farm organizations, conservation groups, educational institutions,
non-profit organizations, and community groups all play a part in successful efforts to
improve water quality. Nutrient management: Applying fertilizers in the proper
amount, at the right time of year and with the right method can significantly reduce
the potential for pollution. Cover crops: Planting certain grasses, grains or clovers can
help keep nutrients out of the water by recycling excess nitrogen and reducing soil
erosion. Buffers: Planting trees, shrubs and grass around fields, especially those that
border water bodies, can help by absorbing or filtering out nutrients before they reach
a water body. Conservation tillage: Reducing how often fields are tilled reduces
erosion and soil compaction, builds soil organic matter, and reduces runoff. Managing
livestock waste: Keeping animals and their waste out of streams, rivers and lakes
keeps nitrogen and phosphorus out of the water and restores stream banks. Drainage
water management: Reducing nutrient loadings that drain from agricultural fields
helps prevent degradation of the water in local streams and lakes.
Aff – Reuse CP
Disease
Water reuse causes diseases – it’s not fit for human consumption
ABC News, 2007
(“Scientists warn on recycled water disease risk, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-0512/scientist-warns-on-recycled-water-disease-risk/2546550)
A Canberra microbiologist says recycling water for drinking purposes carries the risk of a major
outbreak of disease. Both Canberra and Brisbane are considering recycling waste water as dam
levels reach critically low levels. Professor Peter Collignon from Canberra Hospital says he
supports the use of recycled water for industry or to irrigate lawns but it should only be used for
drinking as a last resort. Prof Collignon, the director of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at
Canberra Hospital, says if something goes wrong with the filtering technology there is a risk
large numbers of people could get sick. "You just have to have it go wrong one day in every
three or five years and you could have potentially tens of thousands or even hundreds of
thousands of people exposed to a germ," he said.
Disease causes extinction
Steinbruner 98 – John D, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution where he holds the
Sydney Stein, Jr. chair in international security. He is also vice chair of the committee on
international security and arms control of the National Academy of Science (“Biological
Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses”, Foreign Policy Magazine)
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not
depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers
and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully
understand. But evolution
is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases
mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human
immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague
bacterium killed an estimated 20 mil- lion people over a four-year period in the fourteenth
century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in
1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide,
with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera- once thought to
be under control-are now making a comeback.As we enter the twenty-first century, changing
conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of
the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across inter- national borders,
and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of
pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has
ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a
fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
Costs
Recycling increases water costs in the US – the larger the scale, the higher the
cost for consumers
James A. Roumasset and Christopher A. Wada. Roussamasset is a Professor of the
Department of Economics, Wada is a Senior Fellow at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
2010. [“Optimal and Sustainable Groundwater Extraction.” MDPI Journal]
For demand sectors that do not require potable water (e.g., industry, certain types of
agriculture), lower quality water can serve as a substitute for extracted groundwater. Recycled
wastewater is a natural substitute, especially in areas where residential consumption meets
or exceeds withdrawals for non-potable water users. In regions where the scarcity value of
groundwater is very high, some substitution is already occurring, but perhaps not as much as
the casual observer might expect. One explanation is that non-potable water requires its own
set of infrastructure, which adds a non-negligible cost to treatment and distribution costs.
Implicitly, the unit cost of recycled wastewater is then an increasing function of distance to
the treatment facility. If one imagines that users can be ordered by that distance, then the unit
cost can be characterized as an increasing function of quantity rather than distance.
Links to spending – requires large capital investment
Sheehan, California Coastkeeper Alliance, 2009
(Summer of Costs and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives, online:
http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/document/ccka-water-supply-strategies---costs-andbenefits.pdf)
The more recent Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) report
identifies more than 30 recycling projects in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and the
Inland Empire alone with the potential of yielding more than 450,000 acre-feet of water within
five years.9 This report states that “[w]ater recycling projects require a significant amount of
initial capital because expensive treatment and distribution facilities must be constructed
and winter storage is required to fully utilize available wastewater”; it then estimates a cost
averaging $1,000 per acre-foot to produce highly treated recycled water in Orange County.10
Recycled water treated for less sensitive uses and with lower infrastructure costs (at the Eastern
Municipal Water District) averaged $350 per acre-foot, by contrast.11
Enviro
Bad for the environment – produces waste
Irwin, Analyst for Breaking Energy, 2013
(Wastewater Recylcing Part III: Costs and Challenges, online:
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/16/wastewater-recycling-part-iii-costs-and-challenges/)
It remains to be seen which technology will prove most effective, both in performance and cost
terms. And despite the potential environmental benefits of recycling, some concerns remain.
Environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) raised the question of
disposal of toxic waste produced from the cleanup process. “The recycling of fracking waste is
conceptually a good thing, but we’re concerned about the residual waste coming out of that
process that could be toxic, but is not governed under waste rules,” NRDC Senior Policy
Analyst Amy Mall told Breaking Energy. “The waste should be managed under federal
hazardous waste laws, but the industry is exempt from the federal law that governs hazardous
waste.”
***Isreal Desal CP***
1nc
Text: Israel should substantially increase its ocean desalination development.
This solves the case – Israel is experienced and efficient at desalination.
Pyper, E&E Reporter, 2014
(Julia, “Israel is creating a water surplus using desalination”.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202)
SEDE BOQER, Israel -- In the land of milk and honey, water has always been in short
supply. Researchers here have linked temperature rise and drought to migration
patterns across this arid region dating back to biblical times. Now, for the first time in its
history, Israel is on track to experience a water surplus. The first major desalination
plant in Israel opened in the southern city of Ashkelon in 2005. Since then, four more
large-scale seawater desalination plants have come online, with additional capacity in
the pipeline. In the span of a decade, desalination has come to produce about 40
percent of Israel's water supply. On its current trajectory, Israel will have access to
more than 600 million cubic meters of desalinated water per year by 2015, which
amounts to more than half the country's total freshwater needs. Desalination has led
to a resource revolution in Israel, said Shlomo Wald, chief scientist at the Ministry of
Energy and Water Resources. "Now, Israel isn't always dependent on the mercy of God
to give us rain," he said. Drought's stress eases For the last seven years, Israel has been
in a severe drought. The country's largest freshwater resource, the Sea of Galilee, had
been hovering around critical lows until the rains returned last year. By increasing
Israel's desalination capacity, water managers won't have to draw on natural
resources for everyday usage, allowing the region's aquifers to finally recover, said
Eilon Adar, director of the Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research at Ben-Gurion
University. In the 1960s, the thirst for water led Israelis to develop highly efficient drip
irrigation systems. Today, Israel also treats and recycles more than 80 percent of
household wastewater. Spain, which has the second-highest reclamation rate, recycles
about 30 percent. These long-standing practices, combined with desalination, have
helped Israel "conquer the desert," Adar said, "rather than be pushed away by the
desert." Israel now has enough available water that the government has decided to
curb production at four of the largest desalination plants. This year, the national water
company Mekorot will buy 360 million cubic meters of desalinized seawater, just 70
percent of a total 510 million cubic meters of production capacity. Desalinated water is
expensive to make, and desalination plants are extremely capital-intensive to build. So
why build them if they're not going to be fully used?
Solvency
Water Justice
Texas and Nevada are already planning water export deals with Israel - reduces
costs
Booth, Washington Post, 10/25/13
(William, Bureau chief — Jerusalem, “Israel knows water technology, and it wants to
cash in”, online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelknows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc511e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html)
Israel wants to be seen in the water world the same admiring way it is viewed
in the realm of high-tech. The country’s exports of water products have
tripled in the past five years and now total $2 billion, according to Israel’s
economic ministry. Its biggest customer is the United States , but new markets
are opening in countries with an emerging middle class, such as Mexico,
Turkey, China and India. Because of Israel’s history of scarcity, isolation and
resourcefulness, it has the jump in water management and conservation. The first
prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, issued the call to “make the desert
bloom.” Since then, Israeli leaders have periodically dangled the transfer of
water technology as a possible incentive for peace with the Palestinians and
Arab states. Two Republican governors from arid states, Rick Perry of Texas
and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, were on hand with large delegations this week
to peruse the wares at the Watec Israel 2013 exhibition. Perry hailed Israel for
its reuse of wastewater — Israel recycles more than 80 percent of its
effluents, compared with about 1 percent in the United States , the governor
said. Asked about potential deals between Israel and Texas for water
technology, Perry said in an interview, “Let’s do it.” The Texas governor was
repeatedly approached by representatives of the Israeli water business who
introduced themselves, delivered business cards and made their sales pitches. The
reason for their interest did not escape Perry. “Texas goes from drought to drought,
and what we need to survive is to conserve and use wisely what water we have,”
Perry said. Texas residents will vote in November on a $2 billion initiative to rebuild
the state’s water infrastructure. The hallways of the Tel Aviv convention center
were packed with engineers from China, Spain, France and Australia. Buyers
and sellers huddled around water coolers signing memorandums of
understanding. Israel is a world leader in desalination of seawater. By next
year, more than a third of Israel’s tap water will come from the Mediterranean
Sea and a few briny wells. Israel’s total water consumption remains nearly at
1964 levels — even though its population has quadrupled to 8 million people,
according to the economic ministry. “They say that necessity is the mother of
invention, and that is clearly the case in Israel,” said Oded Distel, director of Israel
New Tech, a government agency that primes the water pump by giving grants
to high-tech water start-ups and helps market the water industry abroad. “If
we had to rely on sources of fresh water, we wouldn’t be here. In Israel, we use
every drop twice.”
Israel is a global leader – solves modeling
Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14
(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times,
“Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants”,
online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longerworried-about.html)
Each of Israel’s plants cost between $300 million and $450 million to build. The
plants are privately owned and operated, under a contract with the
government , which buys the water from the plants. The budget for water
purchases comes from water charges to consumers. The plants are not
subsidized. Israel’s efforts to solve its water shortage haven’t ended with
desalination. The country treats and recycles more than 80 percent of its
wastewater, using it primarily for agriculture, making it a world leader in that
field.
Israel’s desalination plants can help the United States.
Haaretz, 2014
(Haaretz, “Israeli company building America's largest desalination plant in California”,
http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.575985)
An Israeli company is involved in building what is expected to be the largest seawater
desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, the Orange County Register reports.
When completed in 2016, the plant in Carlsbad, California will be able to provide 50
million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller plants already operate in
California, and 15 more have been proposed. The $922 million plant is being developed
by Israel's IDE Technologies in cooperation with local company Poseidon Resources
Corp. “This is the one supply that San Diego County is investing in that is truly droughtproof,” said Poseidon senior VP Peter MacLaggan. "It does cost more, but it has some
reliability benefits that are very important to the regional economy.” Six decades of
providing water in a country that's 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological
leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California. In Israel,
desalination now provides about one-quarter of the country's water supply. Each of
IDE's three plants in Israel provides roughly double the output anticipated from the
facility in Carlsbad, MacLaggan said. Not everyone is happy with the project, due
primarily to the high energy consumption and environmental impact of desalination.
Katalyn Voss, a water policy fellow at the University of California Center for Hydrologic
Modeling in Irvine, says that desalination should be considered in California only after
other measures are exhausted.
Israel can make money and export water to other countries in need of water
from desalination.
Washington Post, 2013
(WP, “Israel knows water technology, and it wants to cash in”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-knows-water-technologyand-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc5-11e3-b0e7716179a2c2c7_story.html)
Israel wants to be seen in the water world the same admiring way it is viewed in the
realm of high-tech. The country’s exports of water products have tripled in the past
five years and now total $2 billion, according to Israel’s economic ministry. Its biggest
customer is the United States, but new markets are opening in countries with an
emerging middle class, such as Mexico, Turkey, China and India. Because of Israel’s
history of scarcity, isolation and resourcefulness, it has the jump in water management
and conservation. The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, issued the call to
“make the desert bloom.” Since then, Israeli leaders have periodically dangled the
transfer of water technology as a possible incentive for peace with the Palestinians and
Arab states. Two Republican governors from arid states, Rick Perry of Texas and Brian
Sandoval of Nevada, were on hand with large delegations this week to peruse the wares
at the Watec Israel 2013 exhibition. Perry hailed Israel for its reuse of wastewater —
Israel recycles more than 80 percent of its effluents, compared with about 1 percent in
the United States, the governor said. Asked about potential deals between Israel and
Texas for water technology, Perry said in an interview, “Let’s do it.” The Texas governor
was repeatedly approached by representatives of the Israeli water business who
introduced themselves, delivered business cards and made their sales pitches. The
reason for their interest did not escape Perry. “Texas goes from drought to drought, and
what we need to survive is to conserve and use wisely what water we have,” Perry said.
Texas residents will vote in November on a $2 billion initiative to rebuild the state’s
water infrastructure. The hallways of the Tel Aviv convention center were packed with
engineers from China, Spain, France and Australia. Buyers and sellers huddled around
water coolers signing memorandums of understanding. Israel is a world leader in
desalination of seawater. By next year, more than a third of Israel’s tap water will
come from the Mediterranean Sea and a few briny wells. Israel’s total water
consumption remains nearly at 1964 levels — even though its population has
quadrupled to 8 million people, according to the economic ministry.
General
Israel is the “perfect incubator” for water development and innovation
Booth, Washington Post, 10/25/13
(William, Bureau chief — Jerusalem, “Israel knows water technology, and it wants to
cash in”, online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelknows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc511e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html)
“Israel will soon become the largest hub for water innovation in the world,”
said Amir Peleg, founder and chief executive of TaKaDu, which uses algorithms to
monitor municipal water companies for leaks in real time. Israel’s public and
private sectors are investing heavily in developing and promoting the water
industry. There are 280 water technology companies in Israel. Peleg’s company
is a subject of study at Harvard Business School. He is a product of Israel’s start-up
nation — educated in the Israeli army’s elite computer intelligence unit, with
degrees from Israel and France. Peleg made a fortune selling YaData, a behavioral
targeting company, to Microsoft in 2008. After the sale of his software company,
Peleg said he cast around for a new niche and discovered water. He said Israel has
the science, the entrepreneurs, the demand and the venture capital to create
the perfect incubator .
While California struggles with desalinization, Israel is already developed and
excelling
Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14
(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times,
“Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants”,
online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longerworried-about.html)
“There’s no water problem because of the desalination,” said Hila Gil, director of
the desalination division in the Israel Water Authority. “The problem is no longer on
the agenda.” The struggle over scarce water resources has fueled conflict
between Israel and its neighbors, but the country is now finding itself
increasingly self-sufficient after years of dependency on rainfall and
subterranean aquifers. Israel’s experience might also offer some important
lessons, or at least contrast, for states like California. Now gripped by drought,
with the all-important snowpack averaging only 26 percent of normal , California
has struggled with desalination efforts in the past. At present, more than a dozen
desalination projects are at various stages of planning in the state, and the California
Department of Water Resources will be announcing a new round of desalination
grants in May. The grants are very modest, though; the last round, for instance,
offered just $45,000 to study the technology in southern San Luis Obispo County.
Israeli plants are the most cost efficient in the world
Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14
(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times,
“Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants”,
online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longerworried-about.html)
The Israeli plants, mostly located along the coast, operate at high energy
efficiency and are some of the most cost-efficient in the world, when
measured against similar plants in other countries, according to official figures.
Desalinated water at the Soreq plant is produced at the price of 52 cents a
cubic meter, according to terms of a government tender, and while actual rates
fluctuate according to energy costs, currency exchange and the cost-of-living
index, they remain significantly lower than in other nations.
Desalination has solved Israel’s water problems.
Sales, Time of Israel Writer, 2013
(Ben, “With desalination, a once unthinkable water surplus is possible”,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/with-desalination-a-once-unthinkable-water-surplus-ispossible/)
Drawn from deep in the Mediterranean Sea, the water has flowed through pipelines
reaching almost 4,000 feet off of Israel’s coast and, once in Israeli soil, buried almost 50
feet underground. Now, it rushes down a tube sending it through a series of filters and
purifiers. After 90 minutes, it will be ready to run through the faucets of Tel Aviv. Set to
begin operating as soon as next month, Israel Desalination Enterprises’ Sorek
Desalination Plant will provide up to 26,000 cubic meters – or nearly 7 million gallons
– of potable water to Israelis every hour. When it’s at full capacity, it will be the
largest desalination plant of its kind in the world. “If we didn’t do this, we would be
sitting at home complaining that we didn’t have water,” said Raphael Semiat, a
member of the Israel Desalination Society and professor at Israel’s Technion-Israel
Institute of Technology. “We won’t be dependent on what the rain brings us. This will
give a chance for the aquifers to fill up.” The new plant and several others along Israel’s
coast are part of the country’s latest tactic in its decades-long quest to provide for the
nation’s water needs. Advocates say desalination — the removal of salt from seawater –
could be a game-changing solution to the challenges of Israel’s famously fickle rainfall.
Instead of the sky, Israel’s thirst may be quenched by the Mediterranean’s nearly
infinite, albeit salty, water supply. Until the winter of 2011-12, water shortages were a
dire problem for Israel; the country had experienced seven straight years of drought
beginning in 2004. The Sea of Galilee (also known as Lake Kinneret), a major
freshwater source and barometer of sorts for Israel’s water supply, fell to dangerous
lows. The situation got so severe that the government ran a series of commercials
featuring celebrities, their faces cracking from dryness, begging Israelis not to waste
any water. Even as the Sea of Galilee has returned almost to full volume this year,
Israeli planners are looking to desalination as a possible permanent solution to the
problem of drought. Some even anticipate an event that was once unthinkable: a water
surplus in Israel. Israel Desalination Enterprises opened the first desalination plant in the
country in the southern coastal city of Ashkelon in 2005, following success with a similar
plant in nearby Cyprus. With Sorek, the company will own three of Israel’s four plants,
and 400 plants in 40 countries worldwide. The company’s U.S. subsidiary is designing a
new desalination plant in San Diego, the $922 million Carlsbad Desalination Project,
which will be the largest desalination plant in America. In Israel, desalination provides
300 million cubic meters of water per year – about 40 percent of the country’s total
water needs. That number will jump to 450 million when Sorek opens, and will hit
nearly 600 million as plants expand in 2014, providing up to 80 percent of Israel’s
potable water. Like Israel’s other plants, Sorek will work through a process called
Seawater Reverse Osmosis that removes salt and waste from the Mediterranean’s
water. A prefiltration cleansing process clears waste out of the flow before the water
enters a series of smaller filters to remove virtually all the salt. After moving through
another set of filters that remove boron, the water passes through a limestone filter
that adds in minerals. Then, it enters Israel’s water pipes. Semiat says desalination is a
virtually harmless process that can help address the water needs prompted by the
world’s growing population and rising standard of living. “You take water from the
deep sea, from a place that doesn’t bother anyone,” he said. But desalination is not
without its critics. Some environmentalists question whether the process is worth its
monetary and environmental costs. One cubic meter of desalinated water takes just
under 4 kWh to produce – that’s the equivalent of burning 40 100-watt light bulbs for
one hour to produce the equivalent of five bathtubs full of water. Freshwater doesn’t
have that cost. Giora Shaham, a former long-term planner at Israel’s Water Authority
and a critic of Israel’s current desalination policy, said that factories like Sorek could be a
waste because if there is adequate rainfall the desalination plants will produce more
water than Israel needs at a cost that is too high. Then, surplus water may be wasted, or
international bodies like the United Nations could pressure Israel to distribute it for free
to unfriendly neighboring countries, Shaham said. “There was a long period of drought
where there wasn’t a lot of rain, so everyone was in panic,” Shaham said. “Instead of
cutting back until there is rain, they made decisions to produce too much.” Fredi Lokiec,
an executive vice president at the Sorek plant, says the risks are greater without major
desalination efforts. Israel is perennially short on rainfall, and depending on freshwater
could further deplete Israel’s rivers. “We’ll always be in the shadow of the drought,”
Lokiec said, but drawing from the Mediterranean is like taking “a drop from the ocean.”
Some see a water surplus as an opportunity. Orit Skutelsky, water division manager at
the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, says desalinated water could free up
freshwater to refill Israel’s northern streams and raise the level of the Sea of Galilee.
“There’s no way we couldn’t have done this,” she said of desalination. “It was the right
move. Now we need to let water flow again to the streams.”
Israel has the most advanced desalination development in the world.
Jewish Virtual Library, 2013
( JVL, “Water in Israel:Water Desalination”,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/agriculture/desal2011.html)
The Ashkelon facility, regarded as the most advanced desalination facility of its kind in
the world, has been operational since 2005 and supplies more than 108 million of
cubic meters of water - approximately 15% of domestic water consumption. The
facility, which operates by means of reverse osmosis, includes several technological
innovations and it supplies water of the highest quality. In December 2006, the
Ashkelon plant won a special prize for "exceptional achievements" in recognition of its
huge technological contribution to the technological and economic promotion of the
international desalination industry during the annual convention of the Israeli
Desalination Association. This prize joins the "Desalination Plant of the Year" prize the
facility won during the prestigious ceremony of Global Water.
Isreal is already cooperating inernationally
UnitedWithIsrael, 2012
(UWI, “Israel Desalination Turning Africa Green”, http://unitedwithisrael.org/israeldesalination-turning-africa-green/)
Yedioth Achronot has reported, “In a world where freshwater resources are becoming
increasingly limited, Israel—a country that is two-thirds arid-has become a leader in
developing state of the art desalination technology. However, less-developed nations
find that installing desalination facilities is extremely costly, as they use enormous
amounts of electricity and are location sensitive. But thanks to a recent Israeli discovery,
the desalination system may become more affordable in areas like Africa.” Evidently,
the new water-saving desalination innovation is in operation in the Arava Valley,
south of the Dead Sea. According to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, “The new plant relies
on special nanofiltration membranes that churn out high-value irrigation water and
allow the individual farmer or plant manager to decide which minerals should stay in
the water and which should be removed. Normally, non-specific desalination filters
remove all minerals, which must then be replenished depending on the end need. […]
The special membrane enables them to save energy in the pumping, while allowing the
water to retain the right essential minerals.” Test runs of the system in the Dead Sea
region of Israel, where the climate is dry, has shown that farmers can use up to 25
percent less water and fertilizer than what is usually needed. Andrea Ghermandi of the
Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research at Ben-Gurion University, who is one of the
systems creators, asserted, “The growing global demand for food and competition for
resources among economic sectors compel future agricultural systems to be more
efficient in the use of natural resources such as land and water.” Rami Messalem, who
was also part of the developing team, explained that, “The breakthrough here was to
make the system more economical and we’ve done this using nanofiltration cleverly.
Our system is compatible with electricity but is based on the premise that it can be
used in poor countries, in places where you don’t have an electricity source – as a
standalone system. […]Reverse osmosis is based on membranes, and in this case we are
using nanofilters, which [perform] ‘loose’ reverse osmosis, and we will use much less
energy in the process.” Israel’s IDE pioneered reverse osmosis for desalinating water
(Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Israel has already assisted many countries
with desalination technology. The Jewish Press reported, “Since 2011, the Israeli-built
desalination plant in Tianjin is China’s largest and most environmentally friendly
desalination plant to date, running on some of the waste heat produced by a nearby
power plant, producing fresh water and salt.” Israel’s IDE Technologies has in fact built
400 desalination plants in some 40 different countries from across the globe. However,
this new innovation should greatly enhance Israel’s desalination efforts globally.
Already, Israel has signed a water agreement with the new African nation of South
Sudan to assist with desalination, irrigation, water transport and purification. “We see
this as a privilege to be the first [sector in Israel] to sign an agreement with the new
state. We will continue to do everything possible in order to assist you. You are among
friends,” Energy and Water Minister Uzi Landau said in a statement aimed at Akec Paul
Mayom, water and irrigation minister of South Sudan. South Sudan suffers from severe
water problems.
Israel has survived a terrible drought through desalination.
Lev, 2014
(David, “Israel Faces Almost Unprecedented Water Crisis”,
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177551#.U7nFa_ldXVo)
Israel faces a severe crisis if urgent measures are not taken to address the country's
growing water scarcity, according to experts. January passed with barely a drop of
rain, and February hasn't been much better, despite last weekend's rainstorm, said
Avshalom Vilan, chairman of the Israeli Agricultural Federation, a group representing
farmers and agricultural families. Unless there is a “climatic miracle,” he said, Israel
would soon be in a very serious water shortage situation. The situation is so bad, he
said, that stored water that is usually released only in April to farmers in northern
Israel is already being used, due to a lack of natural rainfall. Fortunately, there is
something the government can do to alleviate the shortage – by activating all of
Israel's water desalination plants. Due to last year's good rainfall, the desalination
plants are currently running only at half capacity. At full capacity, said Vilan, they
could supply 150 million cubic meters of water, enough to get Israel through the
current crisis. One reason the authorities prefer natural water over desalinated water
is because the latter costs more to produce, but according to Vilan, Israelis will not pay
directly for that water, because most of it will be used for agricultural purposes, leaving
the fresh water for drinking. While farmers and food processors would probably pass on
their extra costs to consumers – who would end up paying the desalination costs
indirectly – it was still a better alternative than going thirsty. “A lack of water could be
very problematic for the Israeli consumer,” said Vilan. “We need to make decisions now.
The Treasury must lead this effort. If we enact this we have an opportunity to begin to
solve our water problems,” he said.
Israel’s Desalination Plants Are safely Filtered, Making It Feasible
Water Technology, 2014
(WT, “Sorek Desalination Plant, Israel”, http://www.watertechnology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/)
The Sorek desalination located about 15km south of Tel Aviv, Israel, became
operational in October 2013 with a seawater treatment capacity of 624,000m³/day,
which makes it world's biggest seawater desalination plant. The desalination facility
uses seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) process providing water to Israel's national
water carrier system. Construction of the desalination plant began in January 2011 and
was completed with a total investment of about $400m. One of the most important
components of the plant is the use of an SWRO desalination process. SWRO was chosen
as it was the most practicable option from technical and economical points of view.
Project needs, site conditions and the Finance Ministry's Inter-Ministerial Tenders
Committee requirements were the other factors that worked in favour of SWRO. Major
components of the facility can broadly be categorised into an intake system, onshore
interconnection pipelines and a seawater pumping station. Intake system facilities
include intake heads for adequate and consistent flow of feed water, as well as
offshore seawater supply and brine outfall pipelines. Feed water for the process is
taken from two open sea intake heads located around 1.15km offshore. The suction
heads are provided with a slow suction velocity of 0.15m/s so the effects of
entrainment and impingement of marine organisms can be kept minimal. Corrosion of
intake structures is prevented by installing an automatic active cathodic protection
system. The two underground intake and one brine pipelines were installed by using
the pipe jacking method. The brine outfall pipeline was laid up to a depth of 20m,
approximately 1.85km from shore. The pipe jacking method was also applied to install
the majority of the onshore pipelines. Two feed pipelines made of concrete were laid
from the onshore chamber to the intake pumping station, located 2.4km from the sea
shore. The seawater pumping station includes an intake pit, oil monitors, vertical pumps
and travelling screens with self-cleansing system. Electricity for the operation of the
facility is provided by an independent power producer (IPP),which was built on site by
Delek Infrastructure. Chemical dosing and a flocculation basin are used for the prefiltration process. The chemical dosing station consists of two pumps, each supplied
with a frequency converter device. This device keeps the pumps' revolutions each
minute (RPM) and flow rate in alignment with the plant's real-time needs. The
flocculation basin facilitates the process to separate suspended solids. Remaining
impurities are removed through dual media gravity filtration. The filtered seawater is
then pumped by the low pressure feed booster pumps to the reverse osmosis section
for desalination. Post-treatment involves re-mineralisation of the desalinated water
followed by final disinfection. Sorek desalination project is a part of the desalination
master plan launched by the Water Desalination Administration (WDA), an Israeli
Governmental agency, in 2000. The plan envisages the production of approximately
650 million cubic meters per annum by the year 2020, by building large-scale seawater
plants along the coast of the Mediterranean. The agency has already built Ashkelon,
Palmahim and Hadera plants which have a combined production capacity of
approximately 290 million cubic meters a year. The new plant caters for 10% of the
country's drinking water consumption and about 20% of its domestic water
consumption.
Water Wars
Solves water conflict- Israel will export
Reuters, 12/6/11
(“Desalination plant could make Israel water exporter”, online:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-israel-desalinationidUSTRE7B50V520111206)
(Reuters) - Israel's national water company signed a financing agreement to build a
desalination plant, which officials said could allow drought-ridden Israel to
export water to its neighbors upon completion in 2013. Israel's ADL, a subsidiary
of state-owned Mekorot, will build and operate the plant in the coastal city of
Ashdod for 25 years, supplying 100 million cubic metres of desalinated water
annually, the Finance Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday. Israel is two-thirds
arid and to avoid further depleting its fresh water sources it has become a
world leader in desalination and wastewater recycling. The new Ashdod plant
will join four other desalination facilities that to provide, by the end of 2013, 85
percent of the country's household water consumption. " In the coming years
we will be able to return water to nature and even sell water to our
neighbors ," said Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. ADL secured funding for the
project from Israel's Bank Hapoalim and the European Investment Bank (EIB), the
statement said.
Israel’s water supply solves Middle Eastern “hotspot”
Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14
(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times,
“Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants”,
online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longerworried-about.html)
In peace negotiations with the Palestinians, desalination could allow for more
equitable sharing of natural water resources in the West Bank , now largely
controlled by Israel, according to Bromberg. “Increasing the pie through
desalination allows the natural water to be shared at low political cost for
Israel and at a high political gain for Abu Mazen,” he said, using the nickname of
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. “Allowing more water to flow in every
Palestinian tap has immediate impact on the quality of life of all Palestinians.
This is relevant to the (peace) efforts of Secretary of State (John) Kerry. We can
move forward rapidly on water.”
Desalination Can Make Peace in the Middle East
Milstein, National Geographic, 2008
(Mati, National Geographic Reporter, “Desalination No "Silver Bullet" in Mideast”,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080522-middle-east.html)
Hillel Shuval, a veteran expert on the Middle East water conflict at Jerusalem's
Hadassah Academic College, sees desalination as providing a window of opportunity.
"Desalination makes peace much more possible for the Israelis," Shuval said. "Because
of desalination, I don't think the next Middle East war will be over water," added Tal.
Improvements to the desalination option might include the use of concentrated solar
power in place of fossil fuels. But both Israelis and Palestinians at the conference in
Amman agreed that desalination and its potential effects are still largely unexplored and
should be just part of a diversified long-term response to the water crisis.
Israel is selling desalination water to its neighbors.
Kershner, NYT, 2013
(Isabel, “A Rare Middle East Agreement, on Water”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-jordan-andpalestinians-sign-water-project-deal.html?_r=0)
JERUSALEM — In a rare display of regional cooperation, representatives of Israel,
Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement on Monday to build a Red
Sea-Dead Sea water project that is meant to benefit all three parties. The project
addresses two problems: the acute shortage of clean fresh water in the region,
especially in Jordan, and the rapid contraction of the Dead Sea. A new desalination
plant is to be built in Aqaba, Jordan, to convert salt water from the Red Sea into fresh
water for use in southern Israel and southern Jordan — each would get eight billion to
13 billion gallons a year. The process produces about the same amount of brine as a
waste product; the brine would be piped more than 100 miles to help replenish the
already very saline Dead Sea. Under the agreement, Israel will also provide Amman, the
Jordanian capital, with eight billion to 13 billion gallons of fresh water from the Sea of
Galilee in northern Israel, and the Palestinians expect to be able to buy up to eight
billion gallons of additional fresh water from Israel at preferential prices. The
agreement was signed at the Washington headquarters of the World Bank, a sponsor of
the project. The water level in the Dead Sea, an ancient salt lake whose shores are the
lowest dry places on the earth’s surface, has been dropping by more than three feet a
year, mainly because most of the water in the Jordan River, its main feeder, has been
diverted by Israel, Jordan or Syria for domestic use and irrigation; very little now reaches
the lake. Potash industries on either side of the lake have also had a detrimental impact.
About 25 miles of the Dead Sea’s shoreline lie in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and are
claimed by the Palestinians as part of a future state. Israeli officials said that proposals
would soon be solicited internationally from private companies to build and operate a
desalination plant in Aqaba, which is meant to operate on a commercial basis, selling
the potable water to Jordan and Israel. A brine pipeline to the Dead Sea, estimated to
cost at least $240 million, would be financed by donor countries and organizations, with
the World Bank providing a bridge loan. The brine pipeline will run through Jordanian
territory, because the planning process in Jordan is quicker and less liable to be slowed
by the objections of environmentalists and other opponents, according to Israeli
officials. They said that the added brine’s effects on the Dead Sea would be carefully
monitored. The project has been discussed and studied in various forms for 20 years.
Speaking on Israeli Army Radio on Monday, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli cabinet minister
responsible for water projects and for regional cooperation, called the agreement
“historic.” But critics said it was far less ambitious than an earlier proposal for a canal
that would also exploit the altitude difference between the Red and Dead Seas to
generate hydroelectricity. Regional tensions also manifested themselves. Shaddad Attili,
the head of the Palestinian Water Authority, said the agreement was essentially one
between Israel and Jordan, with the Palestinian Authority involved because it shares
part of the Dead Sea coastline. “We gave our support to Jordan,” he said.Speaking by
telephone from the United States before the signing ceremony, Mr. Attili said the brine
from the plant would have to be taken north to the Dead Sea because draining it back
into the Red Sea would upset Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Mr. Attili signed the agreement
in Washington on behalf of the authority; Mr. Shalom signed for Israel; and Hazim elNaser, the Jordanian minister for water and irrigation, signed for Jordan.
US Deslination Bad
Corruption
US desalination can’t solve water justice – corporate abuse
Food and Water Watch, 2009
(Food and Water watch, “Ocean Desalination invites Corporate Control and Abuse of Our Water
supply”, http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Desal-Feb2009.pdf)
So with all of these drawbacks, why are we even considering ocean desalination? Many
desalination projects are built and owned by private companies that see a huge
opportunity to profit. For example, United Water New York is attempting to gain
support for a brackish desalination plant along the Hudson River. Inima USA is building
the first major desalination plant in the northeast, which will treat brackish river water
for Brockton, Massachusetts. Poseidon Resources wants to build the largest seawater
desalination plant in the western hemisphere in California. These plants can sell their
desalinated water to public systems. Unfortunately, this is a dangerous arrangement
for a vital good such as drinking water because private corporations often put their
bottom line before the public interest. First, private control of desalination facilities
means that local governments that purchase the water lose control over the pricing
and the quantity of water available. For example, Inima USA’s new $60 million
desalination plant commissioned by Brockton is actually owned by Inima, which is a
division of another company, Spain-based, OHL. Regardless of whether the town
receives any water, Brockton will pay a fixed fee of $3.2 million per year for the first
three years, which will increase annually thereafter. On top of that, the town will pay
a fee for the actual water, depending on how much it receives. This arrangement will
likely leave the town little control over the price of water. Also, private control of
water makes it difficult to ensure public safety. Public water systems mandate
transparent, accountable management, while private companies consider management
issues to be proprietary business information. Thus, private companies are less likely to
publicize the health or environmental impacts of their plants. The difference between
public and private entities conducting research on desalination can be seen clearly in
comparing the proposal submitted by the Long Beach Water Department with that of
Poseidon resources, a private company. The LBWD thoroughly researched the energy
and environmental impacts of its project and posted the results on its Web site, while
Poseidon Resources, if it conducted such reviews, did not make them public.
Ocean desalination will cause social and environmental injustice in the United
States.
Food and Water Watch, 2009
(Food and Water watch, “Ocean Desalination Promotes Social and Environmental Injustice”,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Desal-Feb2009.pdf)
Unfortunately, the costs of desalination get passed down to the consumer. For example,
the California American Water Company demanded an up-front rate increase to
construct its proposed plant in Monterey, California, before it ever produced a drop of
water. Across the country, in Brockton, Massachusetts, ratepayers expected to see an
estimated 30 percent hike in their water rates once the city started buying desalinated
river water. In 2008, the city council voted for a 60 percent increase in rates before the plant
even came online. Such price hikes are not just a problem for individuals, but also for
society. Water is a basic human need that must be available to all citizens, and most
communities cannot afford to pay exorbitant prices for the desalted water. This
means that ocean desalination contributes to social injustice, because the costs of rate
hikes fall disproportionately on low-income communities. To add insult to injury, the
people in these communities tend to be the same people who would be most likely to
experience the negative effect from the plants. In California, for example, most proposed
desalination plants would serve affluent communities in Marin County, the Monterey area,
Cambria, southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. However, most of the
proposed plants will be built in industrial area, which tend to house low income
communities. These populations will experience the increased air pollution, noise, and
traffic that come from the plants. Meanwhile, low-income coastal communities that
rely on subsistence fishing may be exposed to high levels of toxins in fish that are
exposed to desalination waste products.
U.S. uses water management to exploit other countries
Rosenfeld, Reuters, 4/27/2011
(David, California Turns to Mexico for Cheap Water, Little Regulation, online:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/idUS147080317920110427)
Water agencies representing southern California, Arizona and Nevada are in discussions
with the Mexican government about sharing a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach, just
south of San Diego. But it's the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California that are the most serious, based on interviews with
officials. Construction could begin in as little as two years on a plant producing up to 75
million gallons of fresh water daily. That is more than 50 percent larger than the biggest
facility currently planned for California - within San Diego County in Carlsbad - which has
been delayed by lawsuits and permitting for more than a decade. Up to half of the water
produced in Rosarito is expected to stay in Mexico to meet local demand. But the rest
would be pumped north of the border to American households, said Halla Razak of the
San Diego County Water Authority. "We were happy to find out that we should continue
looking into this, that no fatal flaws were found," Razak said. Meanwhile, San Diego
water officials are also working out an agreement with Poseidon Resources to buy
desalinated water from its proposed Carlsbad facility. Building a plant in Mexico could
produce water faster with arguably less oversight and fewer costs for a region facing
droughts on the Colorado River. Opponents see it as another attempt to take
advantage of Mexico for American interests. "It's absolutely unethical for U.S. water
agencies to finance coastal developments in Mexico to serve the insatiable water
needs of southern California," said Serge Dedina, Ph.D. executive director of the
conservation group, Wildcoast, that focuses on Baja and southern California. "The coast
of Baja should not be used for American infrastructure projects." Dedina said the plan
mirrors those by other corporations to exploit Mexico's lower costs and weaker
regulations, the same incentives that first brought low-wage jobs by American
corporations to the maquilladora sweatshops along the border. "We're used to
evaluating these trans-boundary scams," Dedina said. "The whole thing smacks of
another one."
U.S. Bad For Environment
American desal hurts the environment – companies disregard EPA
requirements
Kemp, 2009
(Miles, “EPA contradicts Government on desalination danger”,
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/desalination-will-threaten-gulf/story-e6freo8c1225712522142?nk=a8aeebb76a264929659a4a1becf6c55c)
The EPA findings are in direct conflict with last year's State Government-commissioned
SA Water draft environmental impact statement, which found the plant was
"unlikely" to have major environmental impact on the Gulf. The EPA findings are
contained in a chapter of its 177-page report, published last month, about the threats to
life in the Gulf. The report states: "There are a number of aspects that have significant
potential to impact on water quality of Gulf St Vincent and the marine ecology of the
surrounding region". SA Water's draft EIS, however, states: "There is unlikely to be any
measurable adverse impacts of the desalination plant on the marine environment
within the Gulf St Vincent." The EPA report was completed before plans for the plant to
double in size in this week's Federal Budget. The "hypersaline" discharge from the
plant could, the EPA found, cause " . . . impacts from elevated salinity, temperature
and altered dissolved oxygen of the water, and also the acute and chronic toxicity
from the chemical additives and concentrated pollutants". This could " . . . jeopardise
localised populations of protected species, such as the sygnathids (seahorses and
pipefish)". Also: "Inadequate mixing of high-salinity discharges could impact on
recruitment, breeding and survival of blue swimmer crabs." The EPA is being consulted
on the draft EIS but does not have the power of veto over the project. Water Security
Minister Karlene Maywald said: "Clearly, unless desalination is managed correctly,
there is potential to impact water quality. "The State Government will not compromise
the environment in the Gulf St Vincent." Ms Maywald said plant builders AdelaideAqua
had committed to a marine-monitoring program with a range of experts monitoring
reefs, plankton, water quality and fish. The EPA report also finds, despite the EIS
completing a a risk analysis six months earlier, that: "At the current stage of
development it is not feasible to undertake this risk assessment process on either the
pilot plant or the full-scale desalination plant". The EPA found chemical pollutants
produced by the plant could include cleaning agents, and metals. Greens MLC Mark
Parnell said two arms of the State Government, the EPA and SA Water, had
disconnected views on the plant. "There is no excuse for the EPA in April 2009 to have
failed to disclose its position on the impact of the Port Stanvac plant," he said. Planning
Minster Paul Holloway approved the plant in February subject to conditions imposed
following the EIS process.
A2s
A2: Crops turn
Desalination has little impact on crops and soil.
FAO, 1997
(FAO, “Water desalination for agricultural applications”,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/docs/lwdp5_e.pdf)
Desalinated water is of high quality and can have less negative impact on soils and
crops in comparison with direct use of brackish water. For cost considerations,
brackish water desalination is more suitable for agricultural production than is
seawater desalination. Moreover, desalination facilities near the point of use are
preferred in order to minimize transfer costs. In terms of operation and maintenance
(O&M), small to medium plants are more problematic. The expert group
recommended that desalination programmes be integrated with water resources
management, with application of best practices for water managements (leaching
requirements, and better irrigation methods) and selection of appropriate salt-tolerant
crops. The optimal size and site of facilities should be studied, and better operating
management of smaller plants is require (automatic plant operations, and farmer
knowledge of operational processes).
A2: Terrorist Attack in Israel
Israel and Palestine coop on desal
IsraelPolitik, 2012
(IP, “At World Water Forum, Israel Offers Assistance for Gaza Desalination Plant”,
http://www.israelpolitik.org/2012/03/22/at-world-water-forum-israel-offers-assistancefor-gaza-desalination-plant/#sthash.9vlGxwJQ.dpuf)
Last week, at the 6th World Water Forum, Israel’s Minister of Energy and Water, MK Uzi
Landau held an important inter-governmental session on wastewater management.
Israel is the world leader in wastewater management, with up to 80 percent of waste
being recycled, primarily used for agricultural purposes. Israel presented its findings
and innovative technologies at the conference, challenging the 179 other countries in
attendance to double their sewage treatment by 2025. The World Water Forum is held
every 3 years since 1997, its goal is to mobilize “creativity, innovation, competence and
know-how in favour of water. It gathers all stakeholders around today’s local, regional
and global issues that cannot be undertaken without all stakeholders into a common
framework of goals and concrete targets to reach.” Said Minister Landau ahead of the
conference, “We will offer Israeli expertise toward improving the water markets of
countries around the world, with the goal of opening more and more doors for Israeli
companies to create relationships with foreign companies and implement international
projects.” In addition, Israel offered to help Gaza build a desalination plant in Gaza to
provide freshwater for its residents. “Our expertise is available to all of our friends,
including some of those who don’t accept us there, which is the Palestinians. We
would like to see their projects going on” said Minister Landau. “We have been waiting
for such projects for many, many years. It is high time, almost 20 years after (the) Oslo
(Accords on Palestinian autonomy), that they will start working and take responsibility
for handling their own things, said Minister Landau. Water security affects both Israelis
and Palestinians equally, and Minister Landau noted that the Palestinian Authority has
not done enough to tackle sewage problems. The PA lets it “pour down the riverbeds
and to our areas on the coastal plains, where at the same time they are not only
polluting the rivers but these waters infiltrate to the underground aquifer which is the
body of drinking water both for them and for us,” said Landau. The Gaza desalination
plant is estimated to cost as much as $450 million USD. The Palestinian Authority
believes that this plant, funded with international aid, would be able to provide fresh
water to Palestinians in Gaza by 2020.
A2: Enviro
US is worse – uses bad disposal practices
Toxic Action Center TAC, 2012
Due to largely to lax governmental regulation on an ever-growing chemical industry,
everyday products that are used and thrown away contain more dangerous and
health-affecting chemicals than ever before. More than 60,000 untested chemicals
pervade the consumer products on our shelves and in our homes. Even those chemicals
whose health implications are at this point clear, such as Biphenyl-A (BPA), commonly
found in plastics like toys, are poorly regulated. The unprecedented toxicity of garbage
exacerbates the problem that nationally we have no clear solution for dealing with
waste. Total Muncipal Solid Waste Generation, 2007: 254 Million Tons (before recycling)
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures 2007. Figure 6.) Packaging is the
largest and most rapidly growing category of solid waste. More than 30% of municipal
solid waste is packaging, and 40% of that waste is plastic. Plastics never biodegrade;
instead, plastic goes through a process called photodegradation, in which sunlight
breaks it down into smaller and smaller pieces until only plastic dust remains. Plastic
does not disappear – even as dust it persists for centuries, wreaking havoc in
ecosystems. Given its lifespan, the quantity of plastic waste we throw away is deeply
concerning. Plastic waste has accumulated to the point where degraded plastic pieces
of the central North Pacific outweigh surface zooplankton by a factor of six to one.
Regulations Favor Special Interests Because the waste business has become a
commercial, money making venture, citizens are outmatched at the state house by
industry lobbyists. Regulations, therefore, currently make it difficult for communities
or states to effectively regulate waste management facilities, and difficult to devote
resources to recycling or waste reduction programs.
A2: Israel can’t solve American crises
Isreal is already helping California
Ferziger, Bloomberg Editor, 2014
(Jonathan, “Netanyahu Offers to Help Brown Manage California Drought”,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/netanyahu-offers-to-help-brownmanage-california-drought.html)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to help California weather its
drought with water conservation and desalination techniques pioneered by his
country’s scientists. Netanyahu signed a memorandum of understanding for joint
technology development yesterday with California Governor Jerry Brown in a tour
through Silicon Valley that also took him to Apple Inc. and other computer-related
companies. “California, I hear, has a big water problem,” Netanyahu said in an
interview yesterday on Bloomberg Television. “We in Israel don’t have a water
problem. We use technology to solve it, in recycling, in desalination, in deep drip
irrigation and so on. And these technologies could be used by the state of California to
eliminate its chronic drought problem.” About 74 percent of California, the most
populous U.S. state with 38 million people, is gripped by “extreme” or “exceptional”
drought, the most severe conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a federal
website. Twenty-six percent of the state -- mostly in central California -- is considered
exceptionally dry, according to the website, which was updated Feb. 25, before
moderate to heavy rains fell on much of the state. Countering Drought Six decades of
providing water in a country that’s 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological
leader in countering drought. Desalination of sea water, reuse of treated sewage for
agriculture, software creating an early-warning system for leaks, computerized drip
irrigation and careful accounting of every drop have become the norm in Israel, the
world’s 40th biggest economy. Speaking to reporters with Netanyahu at the Computer
History Museum in Mountain View, Brown said he welcomes assistance with water
technology. “We’re in the midst of a mega drought,” Brown said. “Israel has
demonstrated how efficient a country can be and this is a great opportunity for
collaboration.” North of San Diego, Israel’s IDE Technologies Ltd. is helping to build
what it says will be the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western
Hemisphere. The facility in Carlsbad, when finished in 2016, will be able to provide 50
million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller plants already operate in
California, and 15 more have been proposed.
Israel is building plants in America
Haaretz, 2/23/14
(“Israeli company building America's largest desalination plant in California”
http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.575985)
An Israeli company is involved in building what is expected to be the largest seawater
desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, the Orange County Register reports.
When completed in 2016, the plant in Carlsbad, California will be able to provide 50
million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller plants already operate in
California, and 15 more have been proposed. The $922 million plant is being developed
by Israel's IDE Technologies in cooperation with local company Poseidon Resources
Corp. “This is the one supply that San Diego County is investing in that is truly droughtproof,” said Poseidon senior VP Peter MacLaggan. "It does cost more, but it has some
reliability benefits that are very important to the regional economy.” Six decades of
providing water in a country that's 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological
leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California. In
Israel, desalination now provides about one-quarter of the country's water supply.
Each of IDE's three plants in Israel provides roughly double the output anticipated from
the facility in Carlsbad, MacLaggan said.
Aff – Isreal
Solvency
Israel doesn’t have the surplus to help internationally – facing water shortages at
home
Lev, Israel National News, 2/17/2014
Israel faces a severe crisis if urgent measures are not taken to address the country's
growing water scarcity, according to experts. January passed with barely a drop of rain,
and February hasn't been much better, despite last weekend's rainstorm, said Avshalom
Vilan, chairman of the Israeli Agricultural Federation, a group representing farmers and
agricultural families. Unless there is a “climatic miracle,” he said, Israel would soon be
in a very serious water shortage situation. The situation is so bad, he said, that stored
water that is usually released only in April to farmers in northern Israel is already
being used, due to a lack of natural rainfall. Fortunately, there is something the
government can do to alleviate the shortage – by activating all of Israel's water
desalination plants. Due to last year's good rainfall, the desalination plants are currently
running only at half capacity. At full capacity, said Vilan, they could supply 150 million
cubic meters of water, enough to get Israel through the current crisis.
Terror
Desalination plants in Israel are prone to terrorist attacks. – means they can’t
provide a reliable supply of water
Federman, Bigstory reporter, 2014
(Josef, “ISRAEL SOLVES WATER WOES WITH DESALINATION”,
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/israel-solves-water-woes-desalination)
SOREK, Israel (AP) — After experiencing its driest winter on record, Israel is responding
as never before — by doing nothing. While previous droughts have been accompanied
by impassioned public service advertisements to conserve, this time around it has been
greeted with a shrug — thanks in large part to an aggressive desalination program that
has transformed this perennially parched land into perhaps the most well-hydrated
country in the region. "We have all the water we need, even in the year which was the
worst year ever regarding precipitation," said Avraham Tenne, head of the desalination
division of Israel's Water Authority. "This is a huge revolution." By solving its water
woes, Israel has created the possibility of transforming the region in ways that were
unthinkable just a few years ago. But reliance on this technology also carries some
risks, including the danger of leaving a key element of the country's infrastructure
vulnerable to attack. Situated in the heart of the Middle East, Israel is in one of the
driest regions on earth, traditionally relying on a short, rainy season each winter to
replenish its limited supplies. But rainfall only covers about half of Israel's water needs,
and this past winter, that amount was far less. According to the Israeli Meteorological
Service, northern Israel, which usually gets the heaviest rainfalls, received just 50 to 60
percent of the annual average. Tenne said the country has managed to close its water
gap through a mixture of conservation efforts, advances that allow nearly 90 percent of
wastewater to be recycled for agricultural use and, in recent years, the construction of
desalination plants. Since 2005, Israel has opened four desalination plants, with a fifth
set to go online later this year. Roughly 35 percent of Israel's drinking-quality water now
comes from desalination. That number is expected to exceed 40 percent by next year
and hit 70 percent in 2050. The Sorek desalination plant, located roughly 15 kilometers
(10 miles) south of Tel Aviv, provides a glimpse of that future. With a loud humming
sound, the massive complex produces roughly 20 percent of Israel's municipal water,
sucking in seawater from the nearby Mediterranean through a pair of 2.5-meter-wide
pipes, filtering it through advanced "membranes" that remove the salt, and churning
out clean drinking water. A salty discharge, or brine, gets pumped back into the sea,
where it is quickly absorbed. The facility, stretching nearly six football fields in length,
opened late last year. Avshalom Felber, chief executive of IDE Technologies, the plant's
operator, said Sorek is the "largest and most advanced" of its kind in the world,
producing 624,000 cubic meters of potable water each day. He said the production cost
is among the world's lowest, meaning it could provide a typical family's water needs for
about $300 to $500 a year. "Basically this desalination, as a drought-proof solution, has
proven itself for Israel," he said. "Israel has become ... water independent, let's say,
since it launched this program of desalination plants." By meeting its water needs, Israel
can focus on longer-term agricultural, industrial and urban planning, he added. Disputes
over water have in the past sparked war, and finding a formula for dividing shared water
resources has been one of the "core" issues in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Jack
Gilron, a desalination expert at Ben-Gurion University, said Israel should now use its
expertise to solve regional water problems. "In the end, by everybody having enough
water, we take away one unnecessary reason that there should be conflict," he said.
Israel has already taken some small steps in that direction. Last year, it signed an
agreement to construct a shared desalination plant in Jordan and sell additional water
to the Palestinians. Israel's advances with desalination could help it provide additional
water to the parched West Bank, either through transfers of treated water or by revising
existing arrangements to give the Palestinians a larger share of shared natural sources.
"Desalination, combined with Israel's leadership in wastewater reuse, presents political
opportunities that were not available even five years ago," said Gidon Bromberg, the
Israel director of Friends of the Earth Middle East, an environmental advocacy group.
Under interim peace accords signed two decades ago, Israel controls 80 percent of
shared resources, while Palestinians get just 20 percent. A more equitable deal could
remove a key source of tension, opening the way for addressing other issues, he said.
But with the most recent round of peace talks having collapsed last month, there is little
hope of making progress on any of the core issues anytime soon. Moreover, Bromberg
said desalination is not an end-all solution. The plants require immense amounts of
energy, consuming roughly 10 percent of Israel's total electricity production, he said.
The exact impact of desalination plants on the wider Mediterranean also isn't clear, he
added. A number of countries, including Cyprus, Lebanon and Egypt, are either using or
considering the use of desalination plants. IDE's Felber said the impact of returning
brine to the sea is "minor." But Bromberg insists it is too early to say what impact
multiple plants would have, saying "much more research is required." Relying so
heavily on desalination also creates a potential security risk. Missile strikes or other
threats could potentially knock out large portions of the country's water supply. The
threat is even more acute in Arab countries of the Gulf, which rely on desalination for
more than 90 percent of their water supplies and are located much closer to rival Iran.
The Sorek plant is heavily protected with fences, security cameras and guards, and it is
not connected to the Internet, instead using a private server, to prevent cyber attacks.
But like other key infrastructure, it could be susceptible to missile strikes. During a
2006 war, for instance, Lebanese Hezbollah militants attempted to strike an Israeli
power plant. Tenne, of the Water Authority, acknowledged that "anything in Israel is
vulnerable," but said the same could be said for sensitive infrastructure behind enemy
lines. "I hope that people will be smart enough not to harm infrastructure," he said.
Israel’s Desalination Plant is Very Close To Terror Bases; Shutdown Can Occur Any
Minute
JPC, 2014
(Jewish Policy Center, “Israeli Cities Under Fire”,
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/cities.php)
Ashkelon: Located on Israel’s Mediterranean coast, Ashkelon is a city with a
population over 100,000, located roughly 9 miles north of Gaza. The city is a favorite
rocket target of Palestinian terrorist organizations for several reasons. For one,
Ashkelon is more densely populated than Sderot. Thus, rockets have a higher
probability of hitting civilians and buildings if they reach this city. Moreover, Ashkelon
is home to important Israeli infrastructure, including Bar Ilan University, a power
generator, and one of the world's largest water desalination plants. All of these are
high-value targets for Palestinian terror groups. Thus, Hamas, PIJ and other groups
have established the 9-mile distance from Northern Gaza to Ashkelon as the new gold
standard for rocket range.
Gaza War
Israel’s Desalination Plants Could Lead to Conflict in the Gaza Strip.
Silver, The Electronic Infatada, 2014
(Charlotte, “Israel-backed "solution" could worsen Gaza’s water crisis”,
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/israel-backed-solution-could-worsen-gazaswater-crisis)
EWASH argues that a desalination plant would allow Israel to avoid its obligation to
allow Gaza to access water in the West Bank. “Desalination for Gaza should come
after the realization of Palestinian water rights and full sovereignty over their
equitable and reasonable share of transboundary water resources,” the paper says.
EWASH also asserts that confining Gaza’s water source to one desalination plant would
render the Strip’s 1.6 million inhabitants dangerously vulnerable in the case of an
Israeli military attack. “Concerns surrounding strikes on infrastructure are not without
precedent: In 2006, the Israeli military severely damaged Gaza’s sole power plant,” the paper
says. Water and sanitation infrastructure has also been targeted. Along with hundreds of wells
used by farmers, Israel has destroyed a major water pipeline in Gaza. It also destroyed the
Nuseirat sewage pumping station shortly after its construction was completed in 2011. In
addition to the very stark political implications of the building of a desalination plant,
the paper raises the practical concern of the cost and feasibility of running a
desalination plant that requires scarce and expensive electricity. In order to procure
enough electricity and energy to run the plant, the PWA has estimated that it would need to be
subsidized by international sources for at least three years — to the tune of $20 million. “This
would, therefore, increase further and perpetuate Palestinian dependency on
international aid, which serves to remove from Israel the burden of responsibility
towards the Palestinians and the obligations it owes them under international law,”
the EWASH paper says. The paper points out other general environmental concerns
about desalination technology, such as the ejection of concentrated salt and chemicals
back into the sea — which Gaza would not be capable of counteracting. EWASH’s
report is a crucial reminder that Palestine’s water crisis has been engineered by the
systematic theft of its resources by Israel. The solution must, therefore, begin with the
return of that which was stolen.
Crops
Isreali Desal hurts Crops
Ashkenazi, Harratez Reporter, 2007
(Eli, “Desalinated water can harm crops, researchers warn”,
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/desalinated-water-can-harm-cropsresearchers-warn-1.232848)
Israeli researchers are calling for a reassessment of the use of desalinated water for
irrigation, warning in an article published in today's issue of Science Magazine that
desalinated water adversely affects some crops, such as tomatoes, basil and certain
varieties of flowers. Israel's use of desalinated water for agriculture is the highest in
the world, so the new research is arousing considerable interest among scientists.
Much of the water produced in Ashkelon's desalination plant is used for irrigation. This
is the world's largest seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plant, producing some 100
million cubic meters of desalinated water a year. Dr. Jorge Tarchitzky, head of the
Agriculture Ministry's department of soil and fertilizer usage and one of the article's
authors, says the plant produces more water than required for urban use, and half of it
is funneled to agriculture. The article says that the water's the low mineral content,
once believed to be an advantage, is bad for the crops. Calcium shortage, for example,
causes physiological defects, while magnesium shortage damages the plant's
development. If the crops are grown in sand or off the ground, the damage is even
worse, because the soil cannot provide the missing elements. Frequent changes in the
water's composition hurt the crops still further. "One morning we woke up and found
that only desalinated water was flowing through the pipes," said another co-author, Dr.
Uri Yirmiyahu of the Gilat Research Center. "We gradually began to see the problems.
For example, a shortage of magnesium damaged the development of tomatoes and
caused defects in basil." Added co-author Dr. Asher Bar-Tal of the Agricultural Research
Organization - Volcani Center: "The problem is the irregular water composition.
Sometimes the desalinated water is adulterated and sometimes it isn't. The damage is
reflected in the crops' quality." "The Agriculture Ministry gave farmers a solution - a
system that reports changes in the water's composition," Yirmiyahu said. "But the
farmer must be prepared for such changes at any given moment. The changes used to
be seasonal, which they could handle. Now, the change could take place within a few
hours and the water's quality must be checked all the time." The tender for the
desalination plant set criteria only for the quality of drinking water. The researchers
are calling for new standards that would also require the desalinated water to be
suitable for farming, by requiring it to contain some of the nutritional elements vital
to crops. "Israel is first in the world in setting criteria for desalinated water and has
managed to raise this water's quality. Now the water quality must be improved for both
farmers and urban consumption," said a fourth co-author, Dr. Ori Lahav of the Technion.
Dr. Alon Tal of Ben-Gurion University and Dr. Alon Ben-Gal of Gilat also took part in the
study. The financial cost of improving the water may determine whether and how any
changes are made. "Our proposal is a compromise," Yirmiyahu said. "The water would
still not be perfect for agriculture, but it would be less harmful. We got together with
several researchers from various disciplines to compose an article calling attention to a
world problem. Water shortages are becoming more common - in Australia, California,
China, Spain and, as ever, the Middle East. Given this looming crisis, it is obvious that
desalination is the front-line defense, and so all the implications of its use must be
considered."
No Solvency
Israel couldn’t even help one state – can’t solve US water shortages
Dearen and Chang, 2012
(Jason, Alicia, “California Drinking Water: Desalination No Panacea For State's Woes”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/california-drinkingwater_n_1906118.html)
MARINA, Calif. — In the Central California coastal town of Marina, a $7 million
desalination plant that can turn salty ocean waves into fresh drinking water sits idle
behind rusty, locked doors, shuttered by water officials because rising energy costs
made the plant too expensive. Far to the north in well-heeled Marin County, plans were
scrapped for a desalination facility despite two decades of planning and millions of
dollars spent on a pilot plant. Squeezing salt from the ocean to make clean drin+king
water is a worldwide phenomenon that has been embraced in thirsty California, with
its cycles of drought and growing population. There are currently 17 desalination
proposals in the state, concentrated along the Pacific where people are plentiful and
fresh water is not. But many projects have been stymied by skyrocketing construction
costs, huge energy requirements for running plants, regulatory delays and legal
challenges over environmental impacts on marine life. Only one small plant along
Monterey Bay is pumping out any drinking water. From Marin County to San Diego,
some water districts are asking themselves: How much are we willing to pay for this new
water? "We found that our demand for water had dropped so much since the time we
started exploring desalination, we didn't need the water," said Libby Pischel, a
spokeswoman for the Marin Municipal Water District. "Right now, conservation costs
less than desalination." Desalination plants can take water from the ocean or drill
down and grab the less salty, brackish water from seaside aquifers. Because of their
potential impacts to marine life, the California Coastal Commission reviews each
project case-by-case. There was great fanfare in 2009 when the last regulatory hurdle
was cleared to build the Western Hemisphere's largest desalination plant in Carlsbad,
north of San Diego. At the time, it was proposed that the $320 million project would
suck in 100 million gallons of seawater and be capable of producing 50 million gallons
of drinking water a day. It was expected to come online by this year. Since then, the
plant owner, Poseidon Resources LLC, has been negotiating a water purchase
agreement and is close to clinching a 30-year deal with the San Diego County Water
Authority, a wholesaler to cities and agencies that provide water to 3.1 million people.
The compact is essential for Poseidon to obtain financing to build what has become a
$900 million project, which includes the seaside plant and a 10-mile pipeline. The San
Diego agency hopes the plant opens in 2016 and anticipates desalination will account
for 7 percent of the region's supply in 2020. It estimates the cost is comparable to other
new, local sources of drinking water, such as treated toilet water or briny groundwater.
Interest is still high, but "people are realizing that desalination isn't a magic fix to the
state's water issues," said coastal commission water expert Tom Luster. Water can be
de-salted in different ways. Poseidon's project will use reverse osmosis. Other plants
shoot ocean or brackish water at high pressure through salt-removing membrane filters.
Because pumps must be used constantly to move massive amounts of water through
filters, these facilities are extremely energy intensive. Also, in many cases, desalinated
water is pricier than importing water the old-fashioned way – through pipes and
tunnels. And it is cheaper to focus on conservation when possible: new technologies like
low-flow toilets and stricter zoning laws that require less water-intensive landscaping
have helped curb demand in communities throughout the state. Desalination has been
around for years in Saudi Arabia, other Arab Gulf states and Israel, which last year
approved the construction of a fifth desalination plant. The hope is that the five plants
together will supply 75 percent of the country's drinking water by 2013. The process
also has helped ease thirst in places such as Australia, Spain and Singapore. Experts say
it has been slower to catch on in the United States, mainly because companies face
tougher rules on where they can build plants and must endure longer environmental
reviews. Poseidon, for example, is facing opposition by environmental groups over its
proposed plans to build another facility in Huntington Beach. The company has received
several permits for the Orange County project, but still needs approval from the coastal
commission. About six miles south of the ghost desalination plant in Marina, the
mechanical whir coming from a nondescript cinderblock building in a Sand City industrial
park is the only evidence that the state's sole operating municipal desalination plant is
at work. The $14 million facility has the ability to produce up to 600,000 gallons a day of
drinkable water for the town of about 340 people. Sand City's plant now produces half
that amount each day; a third is used by the city with the rest sent elsewhere in
Monterey County. City leaders hoped to develop the former military town into an artsy,
Bohemian beachside destination. With no other possible water options, they turned to
desalination. "We're just like Saudi Arabia. There's nowhere else to get water and we
want to develop," said Richard Simonitch, the city's civil engineer. It's not that easy in
Monterey Peninsula, where regional water use from development has exceeded its
yearly rainfall replenishment and desalination is one of the only options available.
Proposals have been fraught with mistakes, political infighting and scandal, and have
cost Monterey area ratepayers tens of millions of dollars. Earlier this year, state
utilities regulators rejected Monterey County's desalination plan, citing problems with
environmental review. The plan was also mired in alleged corruption by a county
water official, who now faces criminal charges. Still, desalination will be an important
part of the Central Coast's future: the state ordered water suppliers to stop drawing
from the Carmel River, its main source of the precious resource, starting in 2017. Even
officials in Marina, with its shuttered plant, see a future in which demand will require
their current desalination plant to resume operation and are planning another, larger
plant to help make up for the expected water loss. "Water politics in Monterey County
is a blood sport," said Jim Heitzman, general manager of the Marina Coast Water
District.
A2: US Bad Arguments
AT US Desal Bad for Economy
Desal Will Improve The Economy
Wang, Forbes, 7/30/2013
(Ucilia, writes for GigaOm, the U.K. Guardian, MIT Technology Review and The Wall Street
Journal.,An Energy Capture Tech To Power The Largest Seawater Desalination Plant In The U.S.,
online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2013/07/30/an-energy-capture-tech-topower-the-largest-seawater-desalination-plant-in-the-u-s/)
After over a dozen years of legal and regulatory battles, the largest seawater desalination
plant in the United States is under construction and will use a technology that recovers and reuses energy that would otherwise go to waste. The $1 billion California project, located in
Carlsbad in northern San Diego County, will employ Energy Recovery‘s equipment that
captures the energy from the highly pressurized water after it moves through the filter
to turn sea water into fresh water and gives the low-pressure water at the intake a
boost before it move through the filter. The technology will help the plant save an
estimated 116 million kilowatt hours of energy, or $12 million, per year, the company
said. Energy Recovery, based in San Leandro in the San Francisco Bay Area, plans to ship
144 pressure exchangers for the project in November or December, said CEO Tom
Rooney. The project is an important contract for Energy Recovery, which is counting on
the Carlsbad project to kickstart a construction boom of seawater desalination plants
in the country.
Israel is the best internal to international spillover and solvency
Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14
(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times,
“Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants”,
online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longerworried-about.html)
The company that runs the facility, IDE Technologies, which is based in Israel,
recently showed foreign visitors around the plant, touting its performance
along with another plant at Soreq, near the southern Israeli coast, the largest
reverse osmosis desalination plant in the world. That plant produces 150 million
cubic meters of potable water a year . IDE is also involved in building seawater
desalination plants abroad , including what is expected to be the largest such
plant in the Western Hemisphere at Carlsbad, Calif., able to provide 50 million
of gallons of potable water a day.
Desalination Good for Economy
Barringer, NYT, 13
(Felicity, online: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/energyenvironment/a-costly-california-desalination-plant-bets-on-futureaffordability.html?pagewanted=all)
Large-scale ocean desalination, a technology that was part of President John F.
Kennedy’s vision of the future half a century ago, has stubbornly remained futuristic in
North America, even as sizable plants have been installed in water-poor regions like the
Middle East and Singapore. The industry’s hope is that the $1 billion Carlsbad plant,
whose builders broke ground at the end of the year, will show that desalination is not
an energy-sucking, environmentally damaging, expensive white elephant, as its critics
contend, but a reliable, affordable technology, a basic item on the menu of water
sources the country will need. Proposals for more than a dozen other seawater
desalination plants, including at least two as big as Carlsbad — one at Huntington Beach,
60 miles north of here, and one at Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps base — are
pending along shorelines from the San Francisco Bay Area southward. Several of these
are clustered on the midcoast around Monterey and Carmel. The San Diego County
Water Authority has agreed to buy at least 48,000 acre-feet of water from the plant
each year for about $2,000 an acre-foot. An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons,
roughly enough for two families of four for a year. The authority has made a long-term
bet that those costs — now double those of the most readily available alternative —
will eventually be competitive. But it still means the authority will pay more than $3
billion over 30 years for only about 7 percent of the county’s water needs.