Desal: The D.C. - Southern California Connection

1. Desal: The D.C. - Southern California Connection Presented by Zach Corrigan, Staff Attorney, Food & Water Watch Desalination Conference 2006 Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA October 5, 2006

2. What I Plan to Discuss: • Who We Are, Why We Care • Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Sponsors, What The Bills Do • Our Concerns • The Bills’ Proponents • The Opponents • Our Tactics • The Bills’ Status Thus Far • Heading for House Passage? • What You Can Do If You Share Our Concerns

3. What I Plan Not to Discuss: • Non-Seawater Desalination Bills • Funding Bills for Individual Desal Projects • Although there are a handful of bills that that people might be interested in tracking: • E.g., R & D for the Dana Point Desalination Project and Lower Chino Valley Demonstration Project; an Orange County center to develop and advance membrane technologies • R & D Bills • R & D for study of the feasibility of desal in Rhode Island • S. 1860, which funds research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies such as desal

4. Who We Are • Food & Water Watch • “A nonprofit consumer rights organization that challenges corporate control and abuse of our food supply and freshwater and ocean resources.” • Spin-off from Public Citizen’s Food and Agricultural Project • We have been working on desal issues for many years in California, but only recently have had the staffing to focus on federal measures.

5. Why We Care • Concerns About Desal: • Privatization of drinking water and ocean commons • Increased drinking water costs for a less-than-reliable technology • Destruction of sealife and degradation of ocean and estuarine ecosystems from entrainment, impingement, and brine discharge • Public health risks from the concentration of harmful drinking water constituents • Increased use of energy and resulting air pollution and global warming

6. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Basics • H.R. 1071, The Desalination Drought Protection Act of 2005, introduced by Rep. Jim Davis (D-FL) on March 3, 2005 • S. 1016, The Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention Act of 2005, introduced by Sen. Martinez (R-FL) on May 12, 2005 • Both bills provide the Secretary of Energy the authority to allocate $200 million ($120 million for sea- or estuarine-water desal) over the next 10 years for new desal plants to offset electricity costs.

7. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Basics (Continued) • Money available to public entities and and private companies that are responsible for providing municipal water service • Payments available for facilities that produce commercial desalinated water for sale within 10 years after passage • Payments per facility can not be received for more than 10 years

8. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Basics (Continued) • H.R. 1071 is different in that • Allocations are made to each facility based on how much water it produces and sells (62 cents, adjusted for inflation, for every thousand gallons of desalinated water produced and sold); • An additional $10 million is also made available for R & D projects that demonstrate “promising novel technology approaches for the cost-effective desalination of water;” • It provided that Tribal authorities are qualified to receive money; and • It has now been amended.

9. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Basics (Continued) • S. 1016 is different in that • Allocations are made to each facility based on how much electricity it uses to produce desalinated water (62 cents adjusted for inflation, for every kilowatt hour used to produce desalinated water); and • It excludes Tribal authorities.

10. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Concerns • The bills incentivize the building of desalination plants but have no conditions to ensure that funding only goes to the least damaging desalination plants. • The Secretary of Energy is free to allocate federal monies based on water production, or even worse -- in the Senate bill-- based on how much electricity is used for water production.

11. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Concerns (continued) • Does not matter if the desal plant is using beach-well/subsurface intakes or is using once-through cooling intakes from a co-located power plant • Does not matter if the site impairs coastal views, degrades wetlands, and blocks access to coastal recreation • Does not matter who the end-user of the water is, or if there was one in mind when the plant was built • Does not matter if the desal plant is run by a private or public entity

12. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Concerns (continued) • Does not matter who will pay the tab after the public monies run dry • Does not matter if there are environmentally and economically preferable alternatives • Does not matter where the plant is sited or where it discharges its wastes • Does not matter if it is providing contaminated drinking water • Does not matter of it is using advanced low-energy or renewable sources of energy • No opportunity for public notice and comment before money is allocated

13. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Concerns (continued) • And why should the Feds care about this? Aren’t these state issues? • Bills are intended to use federal tax dollars because the public good is to spur technological advances in desal, shouldn’t it be the right kind of desal? • Impacts from desal can cross state lines, e.g. ecosystem destruction, global warming pollution, and energy consumption. So not all of the problems from desal can be solved through proper permitting. • Funding will only complicate the federal government’s current implementation of Congressional mandates under the Clean Water Act Section 316(b).

14. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Concerns (continued) • And why should the Feds care about this? Aren’t these state issues? (continued) • Such large subsidies will provide disincentives for more cost-effective sources such as urban and agricultural water conservation and reclamation. • Because federal subsidies can mean more desal and potentially more of a burden on states to ensure the plants do not harm the environment or public health, the feds have a responsibility not to complicate these state efforts.

15. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 The Bills’ Proponents The chief proponent has been the U.S. Desal Coalition Led by Hal Furman, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science in the Reagan Administration Members: American Water - Western Region • Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority • Honolulu City & County Board of Water Supply • JEA (electric, water & sewer); Jacksonville, FL • Los Angeles Department of Water & Power • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Municipal Water District of Orange County San Diego County Water Authority St. Johns River Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Southwest Florida Water Management District Texas Water Conservation Association West Basin Municipal Water District

16. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 The Bills’ Opponents: • Sierra Club • Southern California Watershed Alliance • Surfrider Foundation • The Ocean Conservancy • Statewide Desal Response Group • Food and Water Watch • Center for Biological Diversity • Environmental Health Coalition • California Coastal Protection Network Coalition on Responsible Desal (CORD) • San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper • Save Our Bays And Canals • Save The Bay • Taunton River Watershed Campaign • Clean Water Action Santa Monica Baykeeper San Diego Coastkeeper Coastal Alliance on Plant Expansion (CAPE) California Coastkeeper Alliance Planning and Conservation League California Earth Corps Humboldt Baykeeper Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Heal the Bay Taxpayers for Common Sense Watershed Action Alliance of Southeastern Massachusetts Friends of the Moshassuck (RI).

17. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Tactic: Convince Sponsors and Co-Sponsors to Amend Their Bills • Co-sponsors of H.R. 1071 (27 -- 15-R’s, 12 D’s) Gibbons (R-NV) Gonzalez (D-TX) Harman (D-CA) Hastings (D-FL) Hayworth (R-AZ) Hunter (R-CA) Inslee (D-WA) Issa (R-CA) McGovern(D-MA) Miller, Gary (R-CA) Napolitano, (D-CA) Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL) Roybal-Allard, (D-CA) Shaw, E. Clay (R-FL) Bilirakis (R-FL) Boyd (D-FL) Brown (R-SC) Brown-Waite (R-FL) Calvert (R-CA) Case (D-HI) Costa (D-CA) Davis, S. (D-CA) Diaz-Balart, L. (R-FL) Diaz-Balart, M (R-FL) Doolittle (R-CA) Filner (D-CA) Foley (R-FL)

18. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Our Tactic: Convince Sponsors and Co-sponsors to Amend Their Bills • Co-sponsors of S. 1016 Feinstein (D-CA) Nelson (D-FL)

19. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Bills’ Status Thus Far • All action has been in the House. • After listening to our concerns, the bill was amended before it was voted out of the House Resources Committee. • Most significant new section now requires the Secretary of Energy to prioritize the funding of projects that: • reduce the energy demand of the project; • use renewable energy supplies; • provide regional water supply benefits; • minimize the damage to marine life; or • provide significant water quality benefits.

20. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Bills’ Status Thus Far (continued) • Amendments are a good start but concerns remain : • With a large sum of money available and a small likely yearly applicant pool, plants will have little competition to receive “priority” for the funds. • The bill’s $120 million reserved for ocean projects alone is such a substantial sum that it could fund 16 proposed commercial plants in California for over a year, even if the Secretary prioritizes some plants for funding.

21. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • The Bills’ Status Thus Far (continued) • Amendments are a good start but concerns remain (continued): • Nothing in the bill prevents the funding of desal plants that exacerbate the problem of over-development. • Funds can still go to desal projects when less energy intensive and environmentally damaging alternatives exist. • The bill may divert funds that would otherwise go towards renewable energy research and development. • Nothing in the bill deals with the 316 (b) issue.

22. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Heading for House Passage? • No action in the Senate after Domenici R & D bill passed Resources Committee. Senate looking first to the House. • House bill passed out of Resources committee unanimously. It had a brief stay in the Energy and Commerce Committee and now is scheduled for vote on the floor at the discretion of leadership.

23. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Heading for Passage? • Maybe not? • Some Republicans have expressed concerns about the costs. • Because it was scheduled to be marked out of the Energy Committee with unanimous consent, some members protested and the bill was discharged without a vote. • At least one sponsor has said they would remove their name if we request. • The bill was discharged from the Energy Committee on May 26, 2006 and there has been no movement since. • The main sponsor, Jim Davis, is running for governor and will not return to the House.

24. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • Heading for Passage? • Maybe? • No co-sponsors have removed their name from bill. • No member has stepped up and dedicated themselves to amending the bill. • Silly season • Next year, the bill may not have as flexible main sponsor.

25. Two Federal Desal Bills: H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 • What you can do about this bill if you share our concerns • Call, write, and meet with your member!!!!! • The federal California delegation needs to understand people’s concerns about desalination projects. • The CA delegation needs to understand their constituents are following H.R. 1071 and S. 1016 and have concerns.