Attachment 1
|
Draft Community Advisory Committee
Comments Seawater Desalination Vessel Project Proposed by Water Standard Company July 23, 2007 |
|
|
Merits |
Drawbacks |
|
Janet Brennan 1. Least impacts on ocean resources of any desalination project we have reviewed. 2. Technology is proven although not in this application Pete Dausen 1. Facility is flexible and fully expandable 2. All components can be replaced as needed 3. Innovative contracts such as with GE on turbine replacement 4. Least amount of environmental impact 5. One system that can work despite drought conditions in coastal areas Manual Fierro 1. Water Standard could possibly fully fund and operate the project Bob McKenzie 1. Cost superior to any other project 2. Environmentally superior to other projects 3. Due to capitalization, will be difficult not to do serious work. 4. All technology is proven Bruce Crist 1. Seemingly great environmental approach 2. Proven technology 3. Excellent organizational structure in joining with other companies around the world 1. Flexibility as to size 2. Interesting project that could be feasible Tom Rowley 1. Cutting edge technology 2. Environmentally too good to be true 3. Cost too good to be true 1. Agrees with other committee members that this proposal is innovative and flexible. Outstanding project if all we have heard is true. Robert Greenwood 1. Support technological aspects of this proposal Roy Thomas 1. Less visible plumbing. 2. Cheaper to supply desalinated water under this scenario 3. Can be removed if necessary. |
1. Uncertainty re relationship with water agencies and contractual arrangements needed to get the water on shore 2. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen on regional air pollution 3. Some uncertainty related to storage capacity 4. Without a lead agency we can’t undertake CEQA review 5. Some uncertainty about permitting process and how long it would take to complete environmental review 1. No prototype yet 2. Need a visual to show the view of the vessel from shore 1. Concern with 5 mile-long pipeline being solid or flexible. 2. Feasibility of installing a pipeline 3. Not clear who provides or maintains storage facilities 4. Question about how costs will be recovered from 39,000 ratepayers over a 30 year period 1. There is a need for a lead agency in a region that has difficulty identifying a lead agency 2. The lead agency has not been identified 3. Unmanageable, long lead time for permitting process 1. Private company will produce water and deliver it to land. There is no mechanism for a public agency or lead agency to own the water. 1. No prototype available 2.
Underestimating the oceanographic engineering
and technology needed to operate a ship on 3. Concern re drilling 4. Overly optimistic on cost projections 5. Project is proposed before its time. 1. One obstacle is that cooperation and support of other organizations such as the proposed Monterey Regional Water Solutions Leadership Task Force, local water agencies, California American Water or others is needed for the project to be a success. 1. Concerns about previous experience of Water Standard. Need more information on what they have accomplished. 1. The difficulties of anchoring a vessel in the ocean are being overlooked |
U:\staff\word\committees\CAC\2007\20070827\03\item3_exh3a_attach1.doc