Another planning delay for Poseidon

Jenny Marder

The Planning Commission spent more than five hours Tuesday night

groping for a decision on a controversial desalination plant, and

after deadlocking, opted for the third time to postpone a decision,

sending staff back to study a laundry list of concerns.

As the early morning hours arrived, commissioners found themselves

not only undecided on the project, but also muddled about their own

role as a governing body.

The desalination plant, slated to be built on 11 acres of land flanking AES Huntington Beach, would pull from the power plant’s

daily intake of ocean water to produce 50-million gallons a day of

fresh drinking water. The project was proposed by the Poseidon

Resources Corp., which just cut the ribbon on a similar plant in

Florida.

The Surf City plant would be the largest of its kind in the U.S.

The Planning Commission’s duty was to decide whether the project’s

environmental report fairly disclosed all possible effect that the

plant could have on the surrounding area.

A handful of high-ranking scientists, employed by Poseidon and

with expertise in the fields of marine biology and geology, spoke in

favor of the project, arguing that it would not affect marine life or

the already compromised water quality in Huntington Beach -- two

issues of great concern to residents.

But not all of the commissioners were satisfied and the motion to

vote was put on the table.

“I don’t understand the rush of judgment here at this moment,”

said Commissioner Steve Ray. “I’m not ready to declare that the

[environmental report] is certifiable or not. I still have a couple

areas I’d like to explore.”

The final decision -- to delay the vote on the report and send

staff back to their desks to review certain aspects of the project --

passed on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Ron Davis opposed.

Items that the commission asked the staff to review further

included the possibility that the new water supply would trigger

population growth, concerns from the Irvine Ranch Water District that

the desalination water would mix with Irvine’s water and adversely

affect its chemical content and fears that the plant would harm the

neighboring wetlands that are slated to be restored.

In opposing the delay, Davis argued that the project’s proponents

had thoroughly backed their case with scientific evidence, which he

said was lacking in the opponents’ argument.

“I think we got a responsibility when we took the oath to look at

things fairly,” Davis said. “The issue is whether we’ve fairly

identified things ... I think the real question we have is do we want

to look at certifying this thing or are we making up reasons to keep

it from passing. I think we’ve got to get this thing beyond us.”

Staff throughout the night stood firm on the ground that the

environmental report adequately addresses all of the plant’s possible

impacts and several times admonished the commission that they were

delving into questions that were outside of the scope of their

expertise.

“We want to assure commissioners, that you don’t need to solve and

resolve every problem,” said Mary Beth Broeren, the city’s principal

planner, adding that she was so confident in the report she felt

further review was unlikely to prompt any changes.

But commissioners in favor of a lengthier review refused to be

deterred.

“Whether staff agrees with us is immaterial,” Commissioner Robert

Dingwall said.

The Planning Commission will revisit the project’s environmental

report at 7 p.m. July 8 in the Council chambers.