Image

A vocal individual has recently taken to the social media platform Nextdoor and made it a mission to attack the mayor, city commissioners and block anyone that attempts to reason with them concerning a debate on desalination. The individual believes he has all the answers and that new pipes, repairs to infrastructure and a longterm plan for water sustainability should be ignored and the desalination plant should be operational at full scale. What this individual fails to recognize is desalination plants around the nation are struggling with the huge energy expenditure to operate them and grappling with what to do with the excess toxic waste produced by such systems.
While we support the idea of desalination processes we also believe the city must have a comprehensive plan in place to operate the local plant in a manner that is cost effective, does not waste excess energy and establishes a plan for waste removal. The plant as initially conceived, was designed to supplement, the water supply, not to be the end all of the water supply system.
Consider pitfalls elsewhere that Alamogordo leadership should consider...
Cost: costs run 3 and 4 times more to desalinate then to pull from fresh water resources of streams, wells, lakes such a Bonito Lake Reservoir. SAWS’ desalination process near San Antonio Texas as an example costs up to $1,850 for an acre-foot of drinkable water, which is nearly three times what it costs to provide that amount from the Edwards Aquifer, Express-News reporter Liz Teitz described.
Environmental Concerns: Inner Harbor Water Treatment Campus in Corpus Christi, Texas faces delicate challenges. As a panel of experts, which examined brine discharge for California in 2013 amid then-growing interest in such projects, concluded: “Poorly implemented disposal schemes with low initial dilution in poorly flushed areas can cause widespread alterations” and be damaging to the environment.
The Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant north of San Diego has been a source of environmental angst since it began operating in 2015.
Another pitfall, recent study shows that continued pumping of groundwater is a contributing factor to the subsidence, or sinking, of buildings observed in major cities, including San Antonio and other Texas urban areas.
So it behooves governments to lean into developing technology to desalinate water in a more energy-efficient and environmentally responsible manner. Salty water, which accounts for over 97% of Earth’s supply, offers a more sustainable future but only after and once we’re committed to solving the problems of expense and environmental concerns hindering its potential
Alamogordo City government taking a slow approach to understanding how desalination fits into the overall water plan and working through the development of affordable energy efficiency to optimize taxpayer dollars is essential. Understanding the environmental impact and having an affordable waste disposal plan in place is a necessity to ensure limited negative environmental damage. Desalination is a component of Alamogordo's water management strategy for the future, but the public must understand it is not the first and number one priority to a comprehensive sustainable water plan, but a piece of the overall puzzle to sustainability.
That's wild that you just decide to attack him, the exact same way that you accuse him of attacking the mayor. The fact that you will back the mayor up shows your character and that's not a good thing.
By the way, not sure if you realized it or not, but we are not San Antonio, Texas or any other place that you mentioned, not even closed. So comparing Alamogordo, to those cities is ridiculous. This is one of the worst articles I've seen from you and considering most of them aren't great to begin with, that's pretty bad.
Tessalena Johnson,
Please explain how Alamogordo would be different compared to other towns and cities that have high electric costs for desalination? How would Alamogordo handle waste disposal and environmental impact that would differ from other cities and towns in Texas and California? You have no problem taking aim at the editor of this article without even going into detail as to how our towns proposed desalinization project would actually be any different than Texas and California projects? If it is, then please tell us how? Your statement is vague to say the least. I think his article was very enlightening. After reading it, I am very concerned about what we taxpayers in our town would have to dish out to make this happen. How will it hike our water bill? How will we dispose of the waste and still protect our environment? I do like John Baake answer about creating hard surface basins at the end of arroyos to collect rain water runoff allowing overflow to spill back out into the basin. Until science comes up with better ways to make desalination affordable and environmentally safe, I do not think it wise to implement such a costly endeavor at the cost of tax payers and the environment as well.
From a scientific stand point, large scale desalinization will not be a viable solution for Alamogordo or Otero county.
The Tularosa basin is filled with silt up to 1,000 feet deep in places before you get to bedrock. If you remove the ground water, the silt will collapse, and we will have sink holes everywhere. Likely as deep or deeper than bottomless lake near Roswell.
A more viable solution is to create hard surfaced basins at the end of arroyo's to collect rain water runoff.
The preferred design would be a large underground tank at each location with multiple screens to filter the incoming water and one way valves to allow overflow to spill out on to the basin (as it currently does) when the tanks are full.
the facts on the ground seem to point that way, but what about the oil producing eastern counties? just like texas, they deal with massive amounts of wastewater...and if they could sell it to the public, to drink, but they might be held responsible for it's quality - not so good.
I don't have the science in front of me at the time of this post, but my gut instinct would be to leave it where the oil was.
I believe leaving it behind would promote better geological stability as well as preventing cleaner water near the surface to seep down to those deeper reservoirs.
But again, I haven't looked at the science, so this is just gut feeling.