I was scanning through yet another article on desalination in the New York Times (via DW) when my name popped up:

David Zetland, a postdoctoral fellow at University of California, Berkeley, who blogs about water issues at aguanomics.com, said the project is misguided because cities in the San Diego region could pursue cheaper options like water recycling. But he nevertheless expects Poseidon “to make a killing.”

“The reason they’re going to make a killing is because they’re going to try and build 10 or 20 plants along the coast of California,” Zetland said.

Gleick agrees that other water options are available, especially conservation. But the hard truth is investors are more excited about building big plants with potentially big returns than they are about conservation, which Gleick believes sends the wrong signal to municipalities that have agreed to buy Poseidon’s expensive water.

[snip]

So does desalination make sense economically in the United States? In Zetland’s view, the answer is: only as a last resort.

Repeating an argument he often makes on his blog, Zetland says that the need for desalination plants would be eliminated if water districts were willing to simply raise the cost of water. Doing so would send signals to consumers to stop wasting.

Politicians and regulators, he said, lack the courage needed to boost the price of water because their constituents are used to paying incredibly low prices. “There’s so much slack in the Southern California system,” he said, estimating that the average Southern Californian uses 120 gallons a day, compared to 35 gallons a day in Australia where government leaders have stepped in to boost the cost of watering your lawn or taking a bath.

“There’s constant, constant downward pressure on prices” in California, Zetland said. “If San Diego raised the price of water this month, they would not need a desal plant next month.”

Gleick sees a more complex dynamic at work and called the pricing explanation oversimplified [1]. He said water districts in San Diego likely want a local, regional supply of water they can count on, rather than relying on pipelines coming from the Colorado River or Northern California.

“The idea of a perfect market for water is a ridiculous idea,” said Gleick [2], explaining that it is difficult to move water, which is heavy, over hundreds of miles. The water districts in San Diego are fully aware of the cost they would pay for desalinated water, he added.

“They’re not idiots,” he said. “They’re familiar with economics.” [3]

Still, Gleick admits he is baffled by decisions to sign contracts with the Carlsbad plant rather than encourage conservation. “They feel more comfortable buying from a centralized plant than dealing with 10,000 customers who have an inefficient washing machine,” he said. “I don’t understand why they’re doing it.”

Zetland countered with a simple explanation [4]: Politicians are not willing to make hard choices.

“The economics of water,” he said, “have never been as important as the politics.”

Now, I am very glad to be so extensively — and accurately — quoted, but I am NOT happy about the apparent “back and forth” between me and Gleick (see [1] and [4]). I gave an interview to the reporter, and he either took it to Gleick or merged our statements together in a dialogue that never happened.

Further, Gleick’s statements — as they appear here — imply that I said that water markets are perfect and/or that San Diego districts are “idiots” who do not understand economics. These statements, as readers know, are not mine. I talk about problems with water markets here ALL the time (mostly about their non-existence). Further, my critique about water managers is NOT that they are idiots or that they misunderstand economics, but that they prefer to reduce demand by rationing instead of (uncomfortable) increases in prices.

I asked Peter to give his view on this mess, because the reporter has really made it look like Gleick and I are arguing over stupid stuff that we really agree on. Arg!

Bottom Line: Desalination is good as a last resort, but it suits neither the people nor the environment. If anything, it suits academics (curious to see what happens), Poseidon ($) and managers eager to avoid the hard work of demand reduction.