City to Consider Paying for Study on Restarting Desalination Plant
Santa Barbara officials say the topic is unrelated to the governor's declaration of a state drought. A water-conservation plan also will be discussed.
The Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday will consider spending $122,000 on a study to determine how to reboot the long-dormant water desalination plant that can, in times of dryness, turn ocean water into drinking water.
Also on Tuesday, a water-conservation proposal that would, among other things, prohibit new residential and commercial projects from planting turf-grass on small patches, such as between the curb and sidewalk, will be discussed by the Ordinance Committee.
“We here in the city of Santa Barbara do not have an emergency,” said Jim Smith, who has sat on the city’s Water Commission for nine years.
Cachuma Lake, the area’s largest reservoir, remains nearly full since heavy rains soaked Santa Barbara in January. As a result, Smith said, Santa Barbara is at least two years away from a drought.
Officials say the study of the desalination plant is part of a comprehensive effort to update the city’s General Plan, and probably would have occurred at this time even had there been no need for the governor to proclaim a drought.
“This is part of our planning process to look 20 years out,” said Bill Ferguson, water resources supervisor for the city of Santa Barbara. “We don’t need it right now.”
The city started building the plant in 1991, after voter approval in the midst of a local drought that lasted five years and led to drastic measures. The city, for instance, had outlawed the watering of lawns, and put a moratorium on building permits.
The Charles Meyer Desalination Facility, at 525 Yanonali St., cost $34 million to build and was completed in less than a year.
In 1992, the city fired it up, converting salt water into drinking water for customers in the downtown area. Two weeks later, it started to rain, Smith said.
”We did it for a couple months to get some experience with it, then put it in mothballs,” he said.
It has remained inactive since.
For a time, the Montecito and Goleta water agencies each had a share in the project, but those agencies terminated their involvement at the end of a five-year contract.
Those two agencies’ portion of the plant, which made up a little more than half of the total capacity, was sold and shipped to a company in Saudi Arabia. (That country, incidentally, relies heavily on desalination for its drinking water.)
Ferguson said there is a misconception that Santa Barbara sold its portion to Saudi Arabia, too. He added that the study still would need to occur even if the sale to Saudi Arabia hadn’t happened.
“That’s unrelated to the study now,” he said.
Officials said the study costs as much as it does in part because the facility no longer meets current standards; it will take careful examination to discern what needs to be upgraded, and how to do it.
The plant has the capacity to deliver about 3,125 acre-feet of water to Santa Barbara, about one-fifth of its total demand.
The study, should it be approved by the council, will be conducted by Carollo Engineers, based in Phoenix.
Water conservation
Meanwhile, the proposed new standards for water conservation would prohibit new projects from planting turf-grass in areas with any dimension less than 8 feet, such as medians between lanes, and the strip of grass between curbs and sidewalks.
The city staff is proposing the ban as a water-conservation measure. Small areas of turf tend to require too much water for such small patches, Ferguson said. The water, he said, ends up running off into the street and down the drains.
The new rules would apply only to changes that are substantial enough to require approval from city design boards. These tend to include projects with multiple units, commercial projects, large houses or homes on a steep slopes, Ferguson said.
Commercial developments already are prohibited from planting turf-grass, unless they have a recreational component. In noncommercial projects, no more than 20 percent of the yard can be made up of turf grass.
Ferguson said more and more people around town are beginning to replace turf with plants better suited for this dry climate.
The city of Goleta has no such limitations on turf-grass, Ferguson said.
“I’ve got turf at my house, and I’m kind of tired of watering it. You get tired of paying the money for the water,” he said. “So I’m thinking if I’m tired of it, that’s probably typical of other people around town.”
Click here to learn about “water-wise” plants.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/03/08 @ 09:14 PM
Nice one by The Kuz.
Here is a different analysis of what reviving the Desalination facility would mean, especially to enable more urban growth and avoid a stated goal of the City for “living within our resources”:
» wrote on 08/03/08 @ 10:49 PM
The headline here and the article published by David Prichett this week on the same subject mischaracterize the proposed study. That is unfortunate for the general public who have neither the time nor background to understand something like this. We are currently going through the process of updating the City General Plan. At the same time we are updating our Long Term Water Supply Plan. Currently Desal is considered part of our available water supply. As the article states the facility has not operated in over 15 years. Should it in fact be considered part of our existing water supply? If so is it valid to do so without spending or at least budgeting the money necessary to make it work? How much is that? Up until recently the figure used was $10 million. It was understood that was a total guess at this point in time and the City Council and the public need real, reliable current information to understand these issues. No one is proposing to “Restart” the Plant and in fact this information may be necessary to determine that it should be excluded as a part of our current available water supply for purposes of the General Plan and the updated Long Term Water Supply Plan.
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 10:40 AM
These water conservation requirements read to me like big brother running amok. They aren’t aimed just for multi-family commercial projects but also for single family ones, those in the jurisdiction of the Single Family Design Review Board and also anything before the HLC, ie. the downtown El Pueblo Viejo and waterfront areas. (Are they going to tear out the grass at Chase Palm Park and also in front of the Parker hotel?)
Recommendations are more kindly and maybe more effective than yet more regulations to be scoffed at. If Ferguson is tired of watering his lawn, then stop.
Perhaps there should be a lawn patrol: those found with lawns pay more than those found with trees or shrubs!?! About 10 years ago, I got rid of my lawn ... by choice, not by edict. I have a small vegetable garden --- and that takes probably more water than did the lawn --- will that, too, be banned?
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 12:07 PM
David Pritchett = Bruce Rittenhouse of the 2000’s. Few people work harder at self-promotion. Actually does Pritchett even have a job?
» wrote on 08/04/08 @ 01:41 PM
As usual, I always enjoy all my anonymous fans who lob criticisms while choosing to omit their true name. Attacking the messenger does not change the facts or the basic policy questions to be answered.
The essential issue here with the City spending $122K on this study is whether any study is worth any price, and how an option for revival of the Desalination facility really is a way to allow more urban growth to consume all that new water and make a mockery of the Plan Santa Barbara slogan of “living within our resources”. I am sure SBREADER understands that this expensive study is the first and necessary step to pursuing planning options that lead to more water consumption.
My piece at Edhat outlines other better uses of those same funds from the City water account, and questions if the full $122K study is really overdoing it for the purpose of Plan Santa Barbara.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 07:50 PM
I wonder why there was no plan created (that meets the current needs) when the facility was decommissioned and components that require frequent maintenance were removed.
Looking past this, here is an idea to explore.
Who better to evaluate and determine how to reboot the long-dormant water desalination plant than a firm that could actually do the work. So instead of paying for a study I would recommend trying to put it out to bid and then give those that bid now priority if and when the project is undertaken in the future. Its possibly a good way to gather varying reports on what needs to be done and also at what cost. And while the city is at it might as well get costs for taking the system round trip - that is usable and then back to decommissioned state. Chances are that once its online the rain will come once again and at that point a study could be half a million.
» wrote on 08/05/08 @ 09:15 PM
Why was there no plan? Maybe because the concept of planning beyond the next election is beyond the IQ level of professional politicians or maybe because the nonprofessional (not the same as unprofessional) politicians are in it for narrow personal objectives and statements (blue lines?) instead of the longterm health of the community?
» wrote on 08/06/08 @ 10:14 AM
Good informative article! I totally agree on the turf grass ban in strips, and feel it should be increased to larger areas as well, the aim being to strongly discourage large turf areas that are not used recreationally, and only there for looks.
We really shouldn’t be watering ANY turf with treated potable water at all if possible. Wherever possible “lawns for looks” should be prohibited, and existing lawns for looks should be converted to drought resistant groundcovers that don’t suck up our valuable water supply. Lawns also require mowing and then blowing, which use fossil fuels and contribute further to pollution of local waterways and the air we breathe!
Water Conservation Coordinator at Montecito Water District.