Poseidon plan moves forward

Supporters of the Poseidon desalination plant scored a major victory

Tuesday night when the Huntington Beach City Council narrowly

approved an environmental report on the project during a marathon

meeting at City Hall.

Just before 3:30 a.m., the council voted 4-3 to certify the

environmental impact report on the proposed $250-million desalination

facility to be built behind the AES plant on Pacific Coast Highway

and Newland Street.

The plant is said to be capable of creating 50 million gallons of

drinking water per day from the sea.

“This is by no means a done deal,” Councilman Don Hansen said,

arguing that the project must still go through a permitting process

more rigorous than Tuesday’s hearing.

“I feel like it was a good decision, and the environmental

concerns were dealt with,” Poseidon Senior Vice President Billy Owens

said after the hearing. “It’s progress, and we’re happy with it.”

Hundreds of people packed City Hall for the nine-anda-half-hour

meeting. They quickly filled the small amphitheater and overflow

seating areas, forcing some residents to watch the hearings on a

small television in a City Hall entryway.

Foes and friends of the project maintained a relatively cordial

atmosphere during the intense hearings, which included more than five

hours of public comment ranging from the pragmatic to the volatile,

with plenty of friendly hooting and hollering on both sides.

In the end, a contingency of Poseidon supporters wearing

pro-desalination T-shirts walked away the victors, much to the

chagrin of the dozens of southeast Huntington Beach residents who

argued that the plant will have a negative effect on their already

heavily industrialized neighborhood.

Arguments for and against the plant seemed to address every

conceivable facet of the project, but in the end the debate narrowed

to two points. Opponents of the project said the group’s

environmental report did not adequately address all the effects of

the project.

They also argued that building the Poseidon facility behind AES

prolonged the life of the aging power plant.

The project’s backers said the report met state requirements and

argued that a denial of Poseidon could mean a public water agency

would likely move onto the site and build a desalination plant. State

law would give Huntington Beach very little say over how the

government used the land.

“My biggest fear is that if we say no, then a public agency will

come in and build it anyway,” Councilwoman Cathy Green said. “Then we

get absolutely nothing out of it and we have no control.”

In the end, supporters of the project outnumbered opponents, with

Councilmembers Hansen, Green, Keith Bohr and Gil Coerper voting to

certify the project’s environmental impact report.

Hansen said he voted to certify the report because he thought the

city needed to move beyond the debate over the adequacy of the report

and analyze how the plant would affect the community.

Specifically, Hansen said he wants to see more information about a

proposed pipeline that will deliver water from the plant to a

regional water distribution center.

Many residents in Huntington Beach are concerned that the

installation of the pipeline will disrupt their lives, especially in

the wake of the Orange County Sanitation District’s sewer line

installation, which has sparked a series of lawsuits from nearby

homeowners.

Hansen also said he wants to see the city’s tax agreements with

Poseidon spelled out in writing before the city approves the project.

He said he learned his lesson from a 2001 episode with neighboring

AES, which made $225 million in improvements to its property but

successfully blocked a Huntington Beach attempt to reassess the

property-tax value of the site.

“I don’t want to go to the public with a project only to find out

there’s a big loophole,” Hansen said.

Despite Hansen’s explanation, many residents said they were

dismayed by the council’s decision to certify the environmental

report.

“I think last night’s decision was tragic,” homeowner Tim Geddes

said. “I’m sure we conclusively proved to everyone’s satisfaction

that the environmental impact report was not adequate.”

The three council members who voted against the project argued

that the report didn’t adequately tackle the project’s intake

pipeline. According to project plans, Poseidon will get its water

from an offshore pipeline AES uses to draw in water for cooling.

“These things are like a giant vacuum that suck in everything out

there in a huge area,” Councilwoman Debbie Cook said.

Cook and Councilman Dave Sullivan argued that Poseidon’s report

fails to look at the effects the pipeline will have on marine life. A

recent Coastal Commission report said the pipeline killed all

organisms within a two-mile radius.

Poseidon officials argued that AES should answer those questions

since it operates the pipeline; Poseidon only uses the water it

provides.

Sullivan also said he believed a desalination plant would prolong

the life of the unsightly power plant and dissuade visitors from

using the city’s south beaches.

“I’ve been convinced that our economic future and only future is

tourism, and I don’t think a desalination plant helps that situation

out one bit,” he said.

The project is now scheduled for a Oct. 17 hearing and could be

subject to several more meetings at City Hall. If the project secures

its permits, it still must secure approval from more than a dozen

public agencies including the California Coastal Commission, whose

staff has been highly critical of the project.

“We’re still a long way from this thing seeing daylight,” Hansen

said.

QUESTION

Did the City Council make the right decision in approving the

Poseidon environmental report? Call our Readers Hotline at (714)

966-4691 or send e-mail to o7hbindependent@latimes.comf7. Please

spell your name and include your hometown and phone number for

verification purposes.