Importing desalinized water from the coast may be one option to meeting the future water needs of Texas, state lawmakers said Tuesday.

State Representative Barry Telford, Democrat-DeKalb, a major proponent of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir, said last week that he is now interested in the potential benefits a desalinization plant might yield for the state's water supply.

"Over the next several decades, our state's population is expected to double," Telford said. "The legislature has tried to address the state's growing water needs through the State Water Plan, and I am interested to see how desalinization fits into the framework."

The technology of desalinization, a process by which salt is removed from sea water to make it suitable for drinking, however, has already made its way into the existing framework since Texas Governor Rick Perry recently announced the availability of $208 million from private activity bonds for the construction of a desalinization plant along the Texas Coast.

"I do think that desalinization is a viable option for the future of coastal communities," said Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff [of Mount Pleasant], also a supporter of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. "But I don't think we have the technology to create any amount of drinking water from imported brackish groundwater at a reasonable cost."

[Comment: What on Earth is Ratliff talking about? Imported brackish "groundwater"?! Desalinization involves sea-water, not groundwater. All these "supporters" of this reservoir have so much to hide, their words become garbled and confused, since they do not expect people to truly listen to them. Politicians are such notorious liars. Ratliff is no different. Roberto]

Mike Huddleston, president of the Sulphur River Basin Authority, the organization that would own, operate and maintain the Marvin Nichols Reservoir if built, agreed.

"The overall project costs about $1.7 billion, with anywhere from $450-550 million of that going to the actual construction of the lake itself," said Huddleston. "That leaves roughly $102 million to build an intake structure and the pipeline from the lake to Dallas. That's approximately 100 miles. Can you imgine what it would cost to build a pipeline from the coast, say Houston, all the way up to East Texas?"

[Comment: Let me see if I get this straight, Mr. Huddleston. The "overall project" is going to cost about $1.7 billion. Of that, about $550 million plus $102 million will be used for the lake and pipeline (presumably including the pumps). 550 + 102 is only $652 million. Where's that other billion dollars going to be spent? Or rather I should perhaps ask, whose pockets will get lined by that "missing" billion dollars? And get your facts straight. Such a pipeline would NOT need to be built to East Texas, because we don't need any water, as the Region D Planning Board openly admits. The pipeline would have to be built from "Houston" to Dallas. And for your information, there is already an existing pipeline from DFW to Toledo Bend Reservoir, if DFW truly needs additional water; and from the northern tip of Toledo Bend to the coast is a relatively short distance in terms of pipeline construction costs. Rick Perry's allocation of only $208 million for such a desalinization project is only a fraction of the $1.7 billion earmarked for Marvin Nichols! I don't know about the rest of you readers, but I see some definitely suspicious red flags flying here myself! JOIN THE RESISTANCE! Roberto]

Not only is cost a question of debate, but so is the existing technology and whether it is economically feasible for Northeast Texas.

[Comment: Again, water is NOT a problem for Northeast Texas! We have more than enough water locally to meet our needs. This reservoir is all about Dallas and Big Money! But modern desalinization technology, pioneered largely by the Israelis over many years, is quite adequate and "mainstream"; so its "feasibility" is not in question. Roberto]

"The need for water in Texas is going to increase exponentially with the growth of our population, the needs in agriculture and the growth of industry and economic opportunity," said Jerry Yost, a desalinization advocate and former contender for the District 1 State Senate seat. "To dismiss anything out of hand is not only short-sighted, but defeats the long term efforts that will be required to make desalinization potentially the greatest opportunity for water resources in Texas."

Yost also added that if desalinization is given the chance it deserves, there may ultimately be five, six or even seven plants in Texas in due time.

However, Ratliff and Huddleston argue that the process is a cost-prohibitive project.

"I have practiced engineering in Texas for 30 years, designed cities' water systems, treatment and wastewater treatment plants," said Ratliff. "I just don't think that desalinization can be used for any amount of municipal water for Northeast Texas."

[Comment: Mr. Ratliff, I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but we do NOT have any need for desalinized or other water in Northeast Texas. Methinks that you and Mr. Huddleston protesteth too much! Roberto]

Huddleston supports research on the subject of feasibility, but he is convinced that the expense of building a desalinization plant outweights the benefits.

"The only communities that successfully maintain and operate a plant are those in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia," said Huddleston. He said only coastal communities like Houston and Corpus Christi would benefit from such technology.

"There were other plants in California and the Key West, but both of those projects failed in the early stages because they were too expensive to operate. We have to be realistic. ... Anybody looking at desalinization as an option instead of Marvin Nichols are looking at a cost prohibitive project."

[Comment: Mr. Huddleston should change his name to "Mr. Muddleston"! Roberto]

Yost adamantly disagrees. "The question one has to ask is: If you don't have water, how much would you pay for it?" he said. "The assumption that the technology and the cost to implement that technololgy are barriers is absolute stupidity, unless of course you support a reservoir and are going to make money off it."

[Comment: Hear, Hear, Mr. Yates! Roberto]

SAN ANTONIO -- Governor Rick Perry on Monday [April 29] proposed that a $208 million water desalination plant be built on the Texas coast as a way to increase the amount of water available to satisfy the state's future demands.

The proposal was part of a water-security program, announced by the governor during a morning visit to San Antonio, that calls for greater efforts to find new water supplies, as well as more conservation of existing resources.

"It's time to look for new and untapped sources," Mr. Perry told an audience at a San Antonio Water System plant near downtown. "There's no greater potential supply of new water than what splashes upon hundreds of miles of Texas coastline."

Mr. Perry said he would ask the Texas Water Development Board, working with regional water-planning panels, to assemble details for a demonstration plant to strip the salt from ocean water to create drinking water than can be piped around the state.

With the state's population expected to nearly double in the next 40 years, he said, "we can't wait to address the issue of a safe, abundant water supply. We have to make plans today."

The state has a number of small inland desalination plants, but none along the coast or comparable in size to facilities in California and Florida.

Representative Ron Lewis, Democrat-Mauriceville, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, agreed that Texas had no choice but to face its water needs head-on.

"If we don't have a supply of clean, safe water, this state is going to dry up and blow away," said Mr. Lewis, who traveled with the governor.

Todd Vottler, a water-resource planner with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, said a desalination plant would address the often-contentious efforts to move water from places that have too much of it to places that don't have enough.

"An almost limitless source of seawater would get around some of the issues faced on the scarcity of sources," he said.

Mr. Perry also said the state should be mindful of keeping its water safe from terrorists and other threats.

He said he had directed all Texas Parks and Wildlife patrol officers to police dams and water-intake facilities to ensure their security, and he will seek the help of federal-state law-enforcement groups to protect coastal ports and waterways.

AUSTIN (AP) -- With fresh water resources predicted to be under serious strain in the next 50 years, state planners met Aug. 21 to begin discussions on a large desalination plant pilot project to help supply clean water in the future.

Gov. Rick Perry has proposed building a $208 million water desalination plant somewhere on the Texas coast to help satisfy the state's future water demands.

Perry asked the Texas Water Development Board, working with regional water-planning panels, to put together the details. The demonstration plant would strip the salt from ocean water to create drinking water that can be piped around the state.

Planners are to present a draft to the water board in December for approval before it is sent to the governor's office and the Legislature. They will consider where the plant should be built, how much water it would provide and who would receive it. Although the plan is for a desalination plant near the coast, board chairman Wales H. Madden, Jr., said the project would ultimatelly help the entire state "where there is the potential to use saline water sources to replenish groundwater."

The original project calls for a coastal plant but planners say they also hope to use the technology in West Texas and the Panhandle to treat brackish water sources. "Desalination is the only true drought-proof source of abundant water for the future," Brooke Rollins, Perry's policy director, told the meeting.

Officials predict Texas' population will nearly double to about 40 million by 2050, and total water demand is expected to increase about 18 percent. Most of the growth will be in the suburbs of major cities. How the water is used will also change. Municipal and industrial use is expected to rise and irrigation, which accounts for about 57 percent of water use now, is expected to drop.

The state has a number of small inland desalination plants, but none laong the coast or comparable in size to facilities at work in California, Florida and other places. Although Texas has some history with desalination efforts, it has usually been more expensive to other alternatives. Recent drought has forced officials to reconsider it as a viable alternative, said Bill Mullican, of the board's planning office.