It’s rare, difficult, and refreshing for a lawmaker to admit making a mistake, and attempt to rectify it. I remember back in 2009 when Assemblyman Solorio realized that he’d made a big mistake voting to authorize the sale of the OC Fairgrounds, and immediately set to work leading the charge to undo that damage, gradually being followed by all the other OC legislators, who came out one by one like a series of dominoes against the Great Fairgrounds Swindle. But Jose did look really good with his humble admission and determination to rectify his error.
Sharon’s signing, earlier this month, of a letter supporting Posideon’s proposed Huntington Beach desalination plant, was not substantively such a big deal – it was just a letter of support with no legislative weight, and she is still in her first year in the assembly – but it was another feather in Poseidon’s cap. She told me that she almost immediately regretted allowing her name to be used, and tried to rescind her signature, but it was too late.
Well, you ask, why DID she sign a letter of support for a project she had originally opposed? First of all, it was not an issue she had been following closely, as she represents the northernmost part of the OC far from Huntington, and also did not expect the matter to ever come before the assembly. Also, she had been MISINFORMED that the Huntington Beach Council had voted once again in favor of the project. (What actually happened at that May meeting was confusing, but five out of seven councilmembers actually wrote to the Coastal Commission asking them to deny Poseidon’s permits – See “HB Council Respectfully Asks Coastal Commission to Shitcan Poseidon.“)
But what really drove her to briefly support the plant was the pleas from the Buildings Trade Unions for 2,000 promised jobs that would come with the project. To Sharon this was a powerful argument, as her own north-county district has seen very little recovery from the recession and is in dire need of more employment.
But in the firestorm following that letter (which of course was signed by all OC legislators, none of whom we expect any better from except Sharon) she became aware of many reasons to oppose the plant, which outweigh the mostly temporary jobs:
- Ratepayers, who are already seeing essential utility costs rising, would experience dramatic rises in water rates for water that, according to our Urban Water Management Plans is unneeded in North Orange County. Our own Orange County Water District is producing water, using a similar process for half the cost. The OCWD has already voted to expand their innovative Ground Water Replenishment System which will deliver similar jobs, for less money, and with multiple environmental benefits.
- Ocean desalination is not without environmental consequences. The project as proposed would use open ocean intakes to take in well over 100 million gallons per day of sea water and all the marine life it contains to produce 50 million gallons per day of potable water. Over 50 million gallons of brine (with all life removed) would be dumped back into the ocean. The plant itself would require a constant 34 mega watts of power (enough for a small city) at a time when the state is directing a response to climate change. In fact, all cities have been directed to reduce water consumption 20% by 2020.
- North Orange County has many options to deal with water supply and demand. All of them are preferable to ocean desalination. All are less costly. All offer multiple benefits and the potential for thousands of permanent jobs as opposed to temporary jobs.
To those arguments (formulated by Sharon’s good friend Debbie Cook) I would add these, from a fiscally conservative / good government point of view:
- The incompetent company is demanding taxpayer subsidies;
- The incompetent company has yet to produce a successful plant, and the least we can do is wait and see how their Carlsbad project turns out;
- The incompetent company wants us to guarantee their profits by signing “take or pay” agreements, whereby we agree to purchase their more expensive water BEFORE any other less expensive water, whether we need it or not; and
- The general secrecy and dishonesty, the bribery and threats, with which Poseidon conducts itself.
So, on consideration of all these concerns, Sharon made the decision to again oppose the project as she had in the past. She will continue to be a great ally to labor in most cases, but this is just one case where the public interest outweighs the two thousand (mostly temporary) jobs that the project promises.
She has instructed Poseidon’s Vice President to stop using her name in support of their project, so if you do hear them continuing to claim they have the unanimous support of the OC’s Sacramento delegation, you will know they are lying; AND
Along with brilliant environmentalist and energy expert Debbie Cook, Sharon will hold a Water Townhall some time in October. Watch this blog for more details. And yay Sharon! Welcome back to the good side.
Water Wars are the future.
We’ll be damned if we go into that future quite.
Nice Work Vern.
Will they be handing out dowsing rods?
Wow. That took real guts — and leadership.
The trades will surely be disappointed, but they must surely recognize that Sharon will continue to be far better for their most important needs than would Royce staffer Young Kim.
Now maybe Daly and Correa can reconsider as well….
“That took real guts — and leadership.”
There may have been an element of courage, or as is more likely the case, fear. But leadership? Really? In what bizarre Alice in Wonderland meaning of words?
What elected politician outside of the noble enviros of Huntington Beach is leading in the questioning of Poseidon?
This one — and no one else. You don’t want to call that leadership, OK.
(Sharon has more to fear from the people with money — Poseidon and the Building Trades and whatever other unions line up with them out of solidarity — than from environmentalists. It’s courage, not fear. Give credit where it’s due, eh?)
Make that “environmentalists and good-government folks.” Again, not a lot of money or power there either.
“It’s courage, not fear”
Then the weather vane is courageous.
Nicely stated. EXCEPT… the weather vane would follow the money.
No, the weather vane would follow the breeze.
Excuse me, but a political weather vane would follow the money. There is no stronger breeze in politics. Case closed.
Vern, I pointed that out on another thread. Your partner’s reply was that there was no money in this deal for Quirk. That may have made her decision to flop after her initial flip a whole lot easier.
If I were her supporter I would wonder why she didn’t properly grasp the various implications of her various positions.
Whatever Greg said, I’m sure that there WOULD have been money next year – from Poseidon AND the Building Trades – if she had stayed supportive.
So no, not weathervane.
David, you’re coming off as sort of partisan. Did she do something bad to you? Show us where it hurts.
I’m coming off as partisan?!
That’s a good one. Please look in the mirror.
I can tell you that I am very unlikely to vote for, let alone support anyone with ties to Ed Royce Jr.
How partisan is that?
You’re spraining your back to avoid giving Sharon credit for a tough political decision — or even to acknowledge that it was one. Why?
I made known my disappointment at Sharon’s initial action, my hope that she’d change it combined with my expectation that it was too politically damaging, and now my delight that she did it anyway. She and I still have our policy differences, but this was a courageous move on her part. If you oppose Poseidon, you have to be pretty intent on not praising her to avoid doing so. So … why?
Like you — and this is to your credit — I want my party to attract voters by being better. Like you, that puts me at odds with many in my party a fair amount of the time. Like you, I’ll criticize them publicly (and apparently like you, pay a price for it.) But apparently unlike you, I’m willing to praise members of the other party — Tom Tait and others opposing the Anaheim boondoggles, Moorlach on the 405 toll lanes (as well as for having a good newsletter), Whitaker and Lalloway for being friendly to Occupy, various people on the HB fire pits, Nelson on the attempted homeless center, some of the Brea City Council, those who came out against Debra Pauly, those who seem sincerely interested in immigration reform, among others — when they do something good. I think that maintaining my credibility in such ways enhances rather than detracts from my partisanship, by focusing on the issues and making my opinion less easy to dismiss. But I do it just because it’s right.
That you’ll sit out the AD-65 election, or maybe even vote for Sharon, is nice — but it’s only one vote. Your someone who speaks out publicly on politics; you influence more votes than you cast. Your not giving her credit here looks partisan — anti-Democrat, even if not blindly pro-Republican. So yeah, in this case you seem more partisan than I do.
A tough political decision? Which one would that be, the first one or the second one?
BTW, I am registered in a political party but am in no way partisan. I think the likeliest hope for government accountability will be Republicans, but the hope is ephemeral. I’ve seen too much.
The second one, obviously. The first one would have been easy, because she had been misinformed.
You’re anti-Democratic, apparently relentlessly. That’s partisanship. It doesn’t much matter who you’re for. Non-partisan would be giving credit and blame where it’s due and being equivocal about the results. You may or may not be equivocal, but you certainly aren’t giving credit where it is due.
If you’ve “seen too much,” you should know that politicians sometimes make what seem like minor decisions quickly based on what seems like compelling supporting information. And you should also know, alas, that having been fooled, they choose maintaining consistency for appearance’s sake, or to protect against those who consider them “already won.” over sucking it up and doing what’s right.
Sharon didn’t take the easier path of consistency. Let that give you some hope, if you will — but at least acknowledge it.
“Sharon didn’t take the easier path of consistency.”
Correct. The zig-zag appeared to be a couple of short-term assessments of the path of least resistance.
I do believe that the Democrat politicians as a rule are less likely to demand accountability from government agencies and the bureaucracies therein. This has to do with native inclination and being supported by public employee labor groups (but as we have seen in OC, the republicans were all too willing to go along).
In this sense I am “anti-Democrat.” However as I’m sure you are well aware, the word “partisan” means someone who positively advocates a political party which I do not.
Anyway, I’ll be happy to give Sharon Quirk credit when I think she deserves it. If, for instance, she changes her position on medical marihuana. That would actually take a bit of real courage because it would piss off the cops who got her elected.
I’m curious what you have against Ed Royce Jr. and his protege Young Kim. Or at least, that’ll be more pleasant for us to hear.
(And amen on SQS and medical marijuana, I’ve been hassling her about that too.)
I’m pretty sure that the second choice was not taking the path of least resistance.
Call us Democrats “Democratic” when you are using the adjectival form. Otherwise, you look moron.
No, I think that “partisan” can encompass rejection of a particular party as well. If not, we’ll have to make up a new word.
How nice of you to condition giving her credit on her agreeing with you on two rather than one big issues. A weakling like me would give her credit for the one and not for the other, as deserved — but you’re clearly made of sterner stuff.
Vern, I always applaud electeds for admitting they made a mistake, but what in the world persuaded her to sign up for Poseidon after opposing it while campaigning? Did she think no one was paying attention? Did she subsequently just forget her earlier position? Did she take an earlier position that she subsequently believed was uninformed?
If she wasn’t “following it closely” why did she ever take a position in the first place other than pandering to the environmentalists? Representing part of north Orange County is not an excuse to not know what you’re endorsing elsewhere.
And who cares if she was “misinformed” about how the city of HB voted? Why is that relevant to the pros and cons of the Poseidon proposal?
Yeah well, when you’re actually in office you gotta weigh lots of pros and cons… and 2000 jobs in this economy is far from nothing even if many of them only last a couple of years. I can see how it could be a tough call. Although I also realize you wouldn’t support her whatever she does.
Her opponent, Young Kim, will be an unapologetic Poseidon supporter, hailing as she does from the kleptocrat wing of the local GOP. Preferable?
“…I also realize you wouldn’t support her whatever she does.”
That is true. But why didn’t she weigh the jobs thing before she opposed it originally? And if she did, then she must have simply caved in to the Davis-Bacon Boys (and girls) later on hoping nobody would call her on it. When they did, and vociferously, she flipped again.
Yeah well let’s see if you make any mistakes YOUR first year in Sacramento.
Is THAT the best defense you can come up with?? Lame …. and pathetic …
My defense is in the article. She admitted a mistake and fixed it, and we salute her.
Poseidon-supporting propaganda-swallowing rightwinger.
???
Oh… that last bit was directed at Skallywag, not you.
I’ve known that cat for years. The kind of “conservative” that refused to believe what happened to Kelly Thomas until the video came out.
And I know that the “Davis-Bacon Boys” (whoever those are) were less persuasive to her on the jobs front than all the unemployed and underemployed folks she met while walking her district last summer and fall. Like I said, hard call.
IMO it is misguided to focus on whether someone made or admits to making “mistakes.” There are three truths, your truth, my truth, and “the” truth. The focus should be on getting closer to “the” truth. And that should be based on data, not opinion.
Very few individuals want to do the required research/inquiry that it takes to get closer to the truth. Instead, we throw our representatives into the ring and demand that they take sides.
I want my representatives to learn as much as they possibly can about an issue before deciding what to support and when facts change, their position should be modified accordingly. The reality is, our legislators are bombarded with lobbyists and self-serving organizations whose access and influence have corrupted every public agency.
The story is not whether Sharon should change her position; the story is how a private company like Poseidon has been able to fool so many people. Whether Sharon signs or doesn’t sign a letter of support will not determine the outcome of such a flawed scheme as the one Poseidon proposes. I welcome any venue that allows a proper inquiry into this project and our water agencies.
Well said Debbie….Poseidon claims that if you are against this project, you are against creating jobs.Nice sound bite,….fits on an attack mail political hit piece.
The fact is , if we were to invest the same amount of money on building re-cachement systems, and improving resources and infrastructure on just properly using the water we waste every year ,…we would be building long term jobs, and work projects throughout the region.
You can be pro-jobs and against the white elephant project that is Poseidon. I go one further. If you consider yourself a true fiscal conservative you would never gamble with this much tax payer money, when the odds are so stacked against you.
Nuclear Power for Flash Distillation
The hybrid desalination plant at Kalpakkam, India produces 6.3 million litres (1.66 million gallons) of water per day.
The Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) evaporation plant produces 4.5 million litres (1.188 million gallons) per day of distilled quality water ($1.50 per gallon) and the Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant produces 1.8 million litres (0.475 million gallons) per day of potable-quality water ($0.9 per gallon).
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/hybrid-desalination-plant-at-kalpakkam/article4167670.ece
India Nuclear = 6.3 million gallons per day @ $1.50 to $0.9 per gallon.
Posideon = 50 million gallons per day. DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE? @ Unstated cost
GWRS = 70 million gallons per day. DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE? @ Unstated cost
http://www.gwrsystem.com/about-gwrs.html
Well, GWRS currently exists, right? The question isn’t whether the claim is reasonable, but whether it’s true.
(In your list, I think you mean “India Nuclear” to be “1.66 million gallons.”)
I’m the 42nd comment.
It would be extremely helpful if someone could document the:
(1) cost per gallon of water produce from the Poseidon and from the GWRS system.
(2) Is the 50 & 70 million gallons per day production, respectively, the truth?
(3) What is the useful life expediency of these two systems?
(4) How long will it take to get the Poseidon up and running and producing water?
And if not the Poseidon then what’s the alternative water producing system and what is its completion date & gallons per day production rate?
Your final (un-numbered) question is most important. And the answer is that, looking down the number of decades it’s possible to look down, we don’t need Poseidon OR an alternative. Our demand has been steadily decreasing, and the systems we have in place, particularly our improved groundwater replenishment, will give us all we need for the forseeable future.
“Very few individuals want to do the required research/inquiry that it takes to get closer to the truth. Instead, we throw our representatives into the ring and demand that they take sides.”
Yes. It’s called representative democracy. And our representative gets lots of pay and prestige and staff to do it; is asking them to get informed really asking so much?
“The story is not whether Sharon should change her position;”
Well, see, the problem for this constituent is that she changed her position – twice.
As stated in the article, for one thing she was apparently influenced the (probably carefully couched and conveyed) misconception that Huntington Beach’s Council now favored it. If they, the main opposition, had folded their hand, then the game would be over and there would be little reason for her to fight it.
She took her position originally when trying to keep Fullerton from being convinced to take part in the “we’ll buy whatever you’re selling” bit.
It’s almost like you don’t like the idea of a Democrat not being a sell-out, David. Relax and embrace the ambiguity of life.
Vern said: “Oh… that last bit was directed at Skallywag, not you. I’ve known that cat for years. The kind of “conservative” that refused to believe what happened to Kelly Thomas until the video came out.”
False – absolutely false A-hole.
Am I remembering wrong, and confusing you with Geoff Willis, as far as Kelly Thomas goes? I apologize if that’s the case. But you’re still one of those people who will believe whatever comes from what YOU think is the right-wing side, as witness your unfailing agreements with Cunningham, your constant grabs off Breitbart.com, and your obvious belief in Poseidon.
“Am I remembering wrong, and confusing you with Geoff Willis, as far as Kelly Thomas goes? I apologize if that’s the case.” – apology accepted
“But you’re still one of those people who will believe whatever comes from what YOU think is the right-wing side, (not true) as witness your unfailing agreements with Cunningham ..” – not true
“.. your constant grabs off Breitbart.com ..” – not true
It is not like you Vern to paint with a broad brush – something up?
“.. and your obvious belief in Poseidon.” – not necessarily – BTW, somewhere in this article I believe there is an indication that this is public money going into Poseidon – I understood this is private money – right or wrong?
Well, without going too far out on this tangent…. when is the last time you disagreed with Matt Cunningham?
Glad to read that Sharon Quirk-Silva has changed her mind, and will now oppose the idiotic Poseidon desalination plan. Looking forward to the town hall event to discuss the project. Let’s see some leadership in Sacramento toward a long term sustainable solution to our water needs instead of support for huckster desal schemes.
there are over 15,000 desal plants operating in over 120 countries in the world. why?
Because there is lots of sea water and lots of suckers.
(1) Give us a citation, ideally one that allows us to compare the size of Poseidon to that range.
(2) Similar logic: “There are over ___ earthquake faults in the world and very few of them lead to major earthquakes. Why worry about San Andreas?”
Cuz they need the water in those places? (In some cases, maybe not all.
15,000 sounds kind of incredible though. How tiny are they, most of ’em?
I don’t have a list of 15,000 plants and their sizes. Just googled and found that number. Actually saw a number of 19,000 but it included some of our warships so didn’t use it. But I must say the best iced tea I ever drank was the iced tea I drank on an aircraft carrier that used desalted water to make it. good quality water from it’s plant and it supported all 5000 people on board.
Yes, I’m sure — and the military is so noted for its pinching of pennies.
I was just looking for a citation on the 15K claim. I’ll wait.
I can make a desal plant with a shovel, plastic sheeting, and a cup. It’s also called a “solar still”. Basic survival gimmick. Not surprised if there are 15,000 in the world. Might serve parts of east Africa very well.
Thank you, Mudge. That’s kind of what I was picturing.
By RON SYLVESTER / ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
The next earthquake to strike near San Francisco could siphon the flow of Orange County’s water supply for years.
It doesn’t have to be a huge earthquake – a magnitude 6.0 or more. It just has to hit near a labyrinth of lakes and channels carved out of northern California between the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, where most people take their boats for the weekend and farmers work the sandy soils on a series of islands that dot the channels of fresh water. It also provides much of the fresh water for Irvine, and nearly all of what people drink in south OC.
Scientists say the next earthquake will cause the islands that act as levies, holding back the salty sea from San Francisco Bay, to collapse. The tides will act as pumps to flood 1 million acres of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta with salt water, rendering the supply undrinkable.
Nearly a third of the drinking water delivered across California comes from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. But for people who live in Orange County, it’s more important. Some cities import more than half of their water from hundreds of miles away. Over the past decade, 60 percent of water brought into Orange County has come from the delta, with 40 percent from the Colorado River. As you move south of Irvine, it increases. For San Clemente residents, 90 percent of their water is imported.
That water supply depends on levees built around small islands. “And they’re not islands as you normally think of them,” said David Mraz, principal delta levee engineer at the Department of Water Resources. “In the delta, the islands are actually bowls.”
‘WE’RE JUST WAITING FOR THE EARTHQUAKE’
The Southern California water supply is as shaky as the ground it sits on.
The century-old engineering marvel that brings water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to Orange County is old and crumbling. Studies by the California Department of Water Resources say the next earthquake of 6.0 or more could cause the islands that act as levees – holding back the salty sea from San Francisco Bay – to collapse upon their own soft ground. The tides will act as pumps to flood a million acres of delta with saltwater, rendering the supply undrinkable for millions.
“It can literally shatter,” said David Mraz, delta levee engineer at the Department of Water Resources. “You’d have a million acre-feet of saltwater. The triggering is all set up. We’re just waiting for the earthquake.”
The pumping of fresh water to other areas of the state, such as southern Orange County, where communities depend on imported water, would cease. Water wouldn’t flow for at least a year. If the earthquake hit during a drought or other water shortage brought on by climate change, it could take even longer.
Interesting article- Wasn’t ‘earthquake survivability’ the grounds for pitching that big Domenigoni (?) dam/ water storage project that is now in the Inland Empire somewhere that we(?) paid Billions for a few years back? And if so, are these NEW quake worries or just neglecting the Domenigoni project, or is its contribution to the solution really less than as sold?
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/eastside_res/