April 16, 2013
The thought of climate change usually conjures up images of extreme droughts and shrinking polar ice caps. Rarely do we link these images to our daily lives or, more precisely, to our wallets. Climate change will alter weather patterns in unpredictable ways, yet scientists agree that within the next century there will be a sea level rise of up to two meters. While this may seem to only affect those living in coastal areas, that couldn’t be farther from the truth (Becker, 2012). A staggering eighty percent of today’s world trade is carried by sea, departing from one shipping port and arriving at another half a world away (UNCTAD, 2011).
The danger with the expected sea level rise lies in the ports themselves, and the problem is twofold. Many of them currently have outdated infrastructure which simply will be unable to handle the sea level rise. The infrastructure will also be unable to withstand more frequent and more intense tropical storms predicted to batter our coastlines. This past year Stanford sent out 342 surveys to ports around the world to better assess worldwide preparedness for climate change in this key economic sector. They discovered that the vast majority of the ports had never discussed adaptation to climate change once in their staff meetings. Additionally, ports overwhelmingly have unfounded and unrealistic expectations about sea level rise. Less than two-thirds of ports believe that a two-meter sea level rise would be problematic, yet their infrastructure will be incapable of handling such changes (Becker 2012). A collapse of this infrastructure would cripple the port and the economies it serves.
Along with these coastal ports, many inland ports will be affected by changing weather and rainfall patterns. Decreased rainfall will lower water levels in lakes and rivers that are key shipping routes. From December 2012 to February 2013 there was a total of $7 billion in goods being shipped along the Mississippi River that were at risk due to the extremely low water levels. (Geman, 2013) The decreased water levels in the Mississippi River, St. Lawrence River, and the Great Lakes will greatly affect the transportation of agricultural, petroleum, chemical products, and other bulk goods throughout heavily industrialized areas of North America. Annual transportation costs are expected to increase by 29% as shippers search for new ways to transport their valuable goods. Proposed ideas include dredging waterways to make them deeper, and finding new routes when rivers are simply too shallow to be navigable by large shipping freighters (Millerd, 2005). These actions will do more than just hurt us in our pocketbooks. Dredging waterways and shipping on previously-unused waterways will disturb and threaten ecosystems already made vulnerable due to climate change.
While the risks of climate change to national and international sea trade are clear, the steps to be taken by the shipping ports to address these legitimate concerns are largely absent. Yet, some ports have heeded the warnings of climate scientists and taken some action. The Port of San Diego has led its field by creating a climate plan in response to a study they conducted which predicted a sea level rise of twelve to eighteen inches by 2050. In the plan they outline an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, locate areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise and erosion, and create new infrastructure in these areas to be more resilient to possible future weather changes (Port of San Diego, 2013).
Coastal ports would be wise to learn from those located in the Gulf of Mexico, who experienced firsthand how disastrous these severe tropical storms and high sea levels can be after Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane crippled the Gulf Coast port for many weeks, and the entire U.S. economy felt the impact. Katrina opened the eyes of the ports in the Gulf Coast, and they are now some of the best-equipped shipping ports in the world to deal with these impending changes (Kafalenos, 2008).
The problem we face right now is a lack of preparation and action, despite the wealth of information available. While the Port of San Diego and those along the Gulf of Mexico have begun planning and preparing for these changes, most ports around the world have neglected the data that has been given to them. The few that have taken some steps are only looking 10 years down the line and are not preparing for what could happen in the coming decades (Becker, 2012). It is imperative that these shipping ports around the world begin taking the necessary steps to prepare for the sea level rise that will occur over the next century. If they do not, the global economy will be severely crippled, as the importation and exportation of goods will be destroyed along with the ports themselves.
By Alex Creem and Sydney Fishman
Becker, Austin, et al. “Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators.” Climatic change 110.1-2 (2012): 5-29.
Geman, Ben. “Obama: Climate change threatens shipping routes.” The Hill, 12 March 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/287577-obama-climate-fueled-drought-presents-export-risks
Kafalenos, R.S., Leonard, K.J. “What are the implications of climate change and variability for gulf coast transportation?” In: Savonis, M.J., Burkett, V.R., Potter, J.R. (Eds.), Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I, Report by the US. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (2008).
Millerd, Frank. “The Economic Impact of Climate Change on Canadian Commercial Navigation on the Great Lake.” Canadian Water Resources Journal 30.4 (2005): 269-280.
Port of San Diego. Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan. 2013. http://www.portofsandiego.org/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation-plan.html
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). “Climate change impacts on ports and trade: The need to adapt.” 21 September 2011. http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsarchive.aspx?ReferencePageId=6091&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Climate%20Change
Commonly referred to as the “Bay Delta”, the 1,100 square-mile region lies on the eastern edge of the Bay Area. It gets its name from the merging of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which originate in the northern and central mountains of California. When these freshwater rivers meet the San Francisco Bay, they form the largest, and one of the most productive estuaries on the west coast, which is home to half a million people and 300 species of wildlife.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin delta has been modified by humans since the mid-1800s, when the Gold Rush sparked a large migration to the area. Those who were unsuccessful at mining tried their hand at farming and found that the soil in this area was rich in organic matter. These farmers built levees to drain the land and built farms that still exist today. But despite large economic gains, their actions destroyed natural habitats and have caused 29 native animal species to become threatened or endangered.
Over the past several decades, the Delta has become the hub of California’s water distribution system. It provides water to over 20 million Californians and supplies one of the largest farming regions in the world, the San Joaquin Valley. Much of the nation’s domestically grown produce comes from water that flows through the Delta, so there is a large economic incentive to divert this water to the Central Valley (Hanson). This diversion is done by pumping stations, which transport freshwater from the rivers into the state and federal water projects. It also changes flow patterns in the channels, which confuses migratory fish. Other factors such as pollution, competition, and predation from nonnative species also add to the environmental risk. It is no surprise that populations of native fish such as the Delta smelt and Chinook salmon are on the decline.
Scientists have determined that the Delta smelt is an indicator species, whose presence or lack thereof demonstrates the quality of an environment. The Delta smelt was placed on the federal endangered species list in 1993 and its population as well as others continues to decline (Healey). The protection of the Delta smelt by the Endangered Species Act has not come without controversy however, with many questioning how preservation of the species justifies reduced water diversion for those who need it.
Drastic changes in the estuary environment can also lead to the extinction of certain plants and animals. Chemical changes can contaminate the freshwater supply and leave large populations without viable drinking water. Fortunately, actions have been taken to remediate this growing problem.
During the Gold Rush, one of the strategies used to extract gold from the river was through the use of mercury. Some of this mercury was spilled into the waterways and would eventually flow into the Delta. Other sources of pollution include agricultural runoff, where 200 million pounds of pesticides are applied to California farms every year. The EPA (2013) also reported that large oil refineries along the San Francisco Bay “release more than one million pounds of toxic chemicals”. Some of these chemicals are washed into the Delta and have gone unregulated for more than 20 years (Wren). Dredging in the estuary for water transportation also increases the turbidity of surface waters by temporarily suspending bottom sediments.
Climate change also plays a role in this problem because it will change the water inflow. Much of the water that flows into the Delta comes from the melting of the snowpack, so warmer temperatures would lead to less spring runoff (California Department of Water Resources). The lack of water coming into the Delta affects the reservoirs that release water for human use and agricultural use, spelling trouble for many Central Valley farmers.
The projected sea level of the San Francisco Bay is also expected to rise with warmer temperatures. Most of the islands in the Delta are surrounded by levees that are only 10 feet in height and constructed mainly of dirt. During storm events, the influx of water from the Bay may be strong enough to break levees and lead to widespread mixing with saltwater (Hanson). These levees can also break in the event of a major earthquake, which is already overdue in California.
Lastly, invasive species threaten the well-being of those native to the area. When a new species is introduced to an area, it will proliferate with lightning speed because there is no competition that will limit its population growth (The Green Gate). Hundreds of aggressive species have found a home in the Delta ecosystem and they are leaving little room for native plants and animals. This further worsens the problem of the endangered species and presents new challenges for the human population.
Nutrient concentrations are significantly correlated with changes in components of the food web over time (Glibert). The ammonia (NH4+) that is discharged from sewage treatment plants affects phytoplankton assemblages. This is directly related to zooplankton, clam abundance, and ultimately the population of various fish species such as the Delta smelt. Phytoplankton constitutes much of the diet of primary consumers and this effect will be felt across the food web. The figure below depicts this correlation, where higher concentrations of ammonia lead to a decrease in the number of Delta smelts.
Changes in salinity and temperature also affects the Delta smelts because it needs suitable conditions for its young to grow. We can see from the graphs below that eggs are the most vulnerable to environmental changes due to their low tolerance of high salinity (Glibert). In a warmer world, fewer eggs will be able to survive because temperatures and salinities will be out of their comfort zones. They may not be able to adapt quickly enough to these changes and will likely face extinction. Other plant and fish species face similar threats.
There are always uncertainties when it comes to predicting how species will respond to changes in habitat quality (Healey). Models try to account for each aspect, but the amount of variables and measurements needed to produce a perfect simulation is near impossible given the large area of the Delta. Instead, researchers tend to gather small sets of data, analyze those results, and apply their findings to the whole population.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)
A proposed conservation plan, which would operate over the next 50 years under the Endangered Species Act, intends to both promote local species populations (including the Delta smelt) while simultaneously ensuring the availability of freshwater for decades to come. But a report released by the National Research Council in the spring of 2011 discredited much of what the plan intended, claiming “the independent scientists assembled by the NRC found that the BDCP fell well short of an objective analysis of likely impacts of the Plan,” (National Research Council).
Currently, the BDCP is working to update its plan in light of criticisms it received. A new Environmental Impact Statement has been filed, and documents concerning the project are currently up for public review, available at: baydeltaconservationplan.com
Minh Ngo and Austin Reagan
Hanson, Charles. “Delta Risk Management Strategy”. Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. Department of Water Resources. 2006.
California Department of Water Resources. “Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources”. July 2006.
National Research Council. “Draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: National Research Council Review Validates the Bay Institute’s Concerns.” May 2011.
The Green Gate. “Invasive Species”. Natrual Resources Defense Council. 2001. http://www.nrdc.org/greengate/wildlife/invasivef.asp.
Wren, Ian. “EPA Report Details Toxic Discharges from Big Industry”. San Francisco Baykeeper. 29 Jan 2013. http://baykeeper.org/blog/epa-report-details-toxic-discharges-big-industry.
Healey, M.C. et al., “Conceptual Models and Adaptive Management in Ecological Restoration: The CALFED Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration Program”.
Glibert, Patricia. “Long-term changes in nutrient loading and stoichiometry and their relationships with changes in the food web and dominant pelagic fish species in the San Francisco estuary, California”. Fisheries Science Vol. 18, Iss. 2, (2010).
Environmental risk assessment is an extremely complicated process. Applying what is learned from risk assessment to the management of environmental problems is just as, if not more complicated. Both of these things are vital in preserving and conserving the environment, but are often overlooked because of all the challenges associated with them. The key to gaining the public’s support of environmental risk assessment is to try and meet these challenges with innovative and cost friendly solutions. However, this is easier said than done. Many challenges do not have a clear solution. Environmental issues are extremely complex. Because of this, solutions are complex and often involve a mix of different ideas and innovations. In this blog, we will talk about four different problems and the proposed solutions, if there are any for the problem.
The first major challenge with environmental risk assessment is that the problems are often too complicated and complex to assess accurately or act on in risk management plans. Often we do not completely understand the mechanisms that drive the processes that occur in the environment. An example of an interaction that we do not completely understand is the interaction of toxins and the environment (SCENIHR, 2012). Toxins interact with the environment in many ways such as contaminating the water table and disrupting the food chain. In addition, we often do not have the technology to measure the risk of problems accurately. Because of this, there is a high degree of uncertainty in environmental risk assessment. Concrete suggestions on management cannot be made simply because there is not enough information to do so. Consequently, management decisions and risk assessment do not accurately address or solve the problem. The solution to this problem is to further our knowledge of the environment through research, and to continue to improve the technology used to study it. As our knowledge improves, so will the quality of risk assessments.
The second challenge is one that has no easy or clear solution. This is the problem of compromising on solutions to environmental risks and management practices. Stakeholders often have very different values and expectations. Lackey (1996) uses the example of food production. Irrigation practices often damage water supplies and the environment. This is a major problem in California. However, cheaper and less environmentally friendly irrigation techniques make food production less expensive. The farmers like this because they do not spend as much money to grow their crops, and consumers like this because food is cheap. However, environmentalists argue that the quality and quantity of our water supply is more important. How does one get these very different stakeholders to agree on a realistic compromise? There is no real solution to this problem. We cannot control the opinions and values of people.
Another challenge that has presented itself throughout most of the articles is the sheer cost of environmental risk assessments. There are two main causes for such high costs. The first is that current technology is very expensive. This prevents many people from either doing the risk assessment at all or doing a complete job. The best available technology is not used, and as a result the assessment is not as good as it should be. The second reason why environmental risk assessments are so expensive is because of the cost associated with the upkeep of management practices. As a result, management practices are often not followed as closely as they should be, making the assessment itself almost worthless. This will change as technology becomes cheaper. However, it will always cost money. The key is to get the funds to supports environmental risk assessment and environmental management. This requires getting the public involved with environmental risk assessment, which is the fourth challenge.
Often environmental risk assessment becomes a conversation between the management and the experts doing the risk assessment. The decision making process reflects a “technocratic” (involving most experts and scientists) rather than “democratic” process (Fiorino, 1990). As a result, the public is often left out of the decision process. The decisions made through risk assessment can have a large effect on the lives of the public. They can also provide funding and support for many of the environmental decisions made as a result of the risk assessment process. Fiorino (1990) gives five suggestions for increasing the involvement of the public in risk assessment. These are: public hearings, initiatives, public surveys, negotiated rule making (involving ALL stakeholders), and citizen review panels.
The final challenge is that companies are finding loopholes in the system. Currently the federal government does not specifically state that a company or project must have an environmental risk assessment performed but the federal government does require all new construction to provide and EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Industrial projects are one key example of where a simple EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) is all that you need. The problem is that many of these projects store massive amounts of waste whether it be toxins or explosive materials (Ortolando and Shepherd, 1995). The challenge is that it is difficult to persuade or convince these companies to include a risk assessment into their EIA. The solution to this problem is showing that the risk assessment is invaluable to the safety of the environment and the workers of that company. With a proper risk assessment added to an EIA, the stakeholders can make safer decisions “and it can also lead to the delineation of emergency response procedures in the event of accidents” (Ortolando and Shepherd, 1995).
As you can see there always seems to be something that we can fix when it comes to environmental risk assessments. From taking on the public with education and enthusiasm to battling head to head with companies over safety vs. price, the battle for the environment rages on. At the end of the day, an environmental risk assessment is a necessary tool that promotes safety, awareness, and prevents possible disasters. As we progress as a society so should the tools, resources, and manpower used to provide these assessments.
This post was written by Matt Binder & Kelly Billings
Link to Navy’s page on Environmental Management – http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/environment/land-based-efforts/ems/
Fiorino, Daniel J. "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional
Mechanisms." Science, Technology & Human Values 15.2 (1990): 226-43. Science , Technology &
Human Values. Web. 29 Mar. 2013. <http://sth.sagepub.com.libproxy.usc.edu/content/15/2/
Lackey, Robert T. “Challenges to Using Ecological Risk Assessment to Implement Ecosystem
Management.” Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 103.1 (1996): 46-49.
Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education. Web. 29 Mar. 2013.
Ortolano, Leonard, and Anne Shepherd. "Environmental Impact Assessment: Challenges and
Opportunities." Impact Assessment 13.1 (1995): 3-30. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 29 Mar.
SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCHER (Scientific
Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Preliminary report on Addressing the New Challenges for Risk Assessment, 8 October 2012
United States Government. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment. Washington, DC: Federal Register, 1994. Print.
March 19, 2013
Fun fact of the day- the last time a native species was caught in the Los Angeles River was 1943. How’s that for a little bit of history? Channelized in 1938 by the Army Corp of Engineers after devastating floods cost the city millions in damages, the 51 mile river was transformed into a manageable waterway with the ability to support human expansion. Consequently, however, this distorted the natural ecosystems and resulted in harm to plant and animal species of native Southern Californian (Gumprecht 221).
Nearly 75 years later, a new initiative has been in development since April 2007 in order to restore the river to it’s previous natural state. Aptly titled, the Los Angeles River Revitalization Project, it is a multi-million dollar project funded with $100,000 from the Obama Administration, $350,000 from The Army Corps of Engineers, and $1 million from the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Additionally, the expected economic impacts as estimated by the L.A. River Restoration committee believe that, “every dollar invested by the public is expected to lead to four dollars of subsequent private investment.” Harder to quantify is the impact on job creation as each project provides both short and long term employment with a multiplier effect leading to further employment opportunities for Los Angeles residents (LA River Revitalization Master Plan Ch. 7- 31)
Two main overarching concerns involved in revitalizing L.A.’s concrete river are water quality and flood control. Untreated urban runoff is a haven for bacteria and viral microorganisms. Being that approximately 2,200 storm drains lead into the L.A. river, marine life and even public health is at risk. The water, in response to an overwhelming influx of nitrogen compounds discharged by treatment plants such as the Donald Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), the Los Angeles-Glendale WRP, and the Burbank WRP, has undergone mass eutrophication. Additionally, anything downstream of the Sepulveda basin has been made toxic by lead, zinc, cadmium, copper, chromium and nickel metals from pesticide runoff.
The loss of at least 90% of riparian vegetation along the river is also related to this as literally 100% of original wetlands in the Los Angeles watershed have been lost according to the California Coastal Conservancy, creating a weakness in terms of flood control as very little exists to absorb or buffer-cleanse these waters now. The Sepulveda basin and Glendale Narrows are the only two areas that support any natural riparian habitat, but these have been increasingly encroached upon by urban development, trash debris, and exotic species
While history has been bleak for the area, the future is looking environmentally greener and (dare we say it?) even economically greener. Though the Los Angeles River Revitalization Project is expected to take many years and is quite expensive, there is no doubt in the necessity of such a project. Providing jobs opportunities, creating public and private investments, adding cultural value to the area with envisioned parks and bike trails, the project will be monumental in improving nearly every aspect of Los Angeles county while cleaning the air and water of 3.8 million Angelinos.
By: Rian Downs and Esmy Jimenez
Works Cited & For More Information:
Gumprecht, Blake. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London. 2011. 221-33.
Earth is nicknamed the blue planet, and rightfully so, because the majority of earth is covered in water. So how is it then that we could possibly be running out of our water resources? Mainly, because as our population grows, so does our demand for water. But we are also using groundwater faster than it can recharge and degrading other water resources through pollution. Additionally, about 96% of the world’s water is found in the oceans, and due to its salt content, it is essentially unusable for human activities. The fact that water is not being used sustainably and that much of earth’s water cannot be used at all will make water one of the most sought after resources in the future, not just in the United States, but also worldwide.
Many scientists seek to answer the question of how to combat this water crisis. Some say that we must work diligently to preserve and protect the water sources that we have already tapped into. But others believe that we should try to find additional sources of water.
One such solution to doing this is desalination. Desalination is the process that removes salt from water. Desalinating water would make salty waters, such as the oceans, accessible to humans, adding to water supplies that can be used for our everyday needs.
Desalination is most commonly done in one of two ways, either through distillation or reverse osmosis. To distill salt water, it must be boiled, and the water vapor must be captured in a different container. The water vapor then cools, becoming liquid water again, but the salts are left behind, because they boil at a much higher temperature than water. Reverse osmosis is much more complicated and much more money and energy intensive. In this process, water moves from high to low solute concentrations, which is the opposite of how osmosis actually works. To do this water is pushed by the force of spinning rotors through a selectively permeable membrane, leaving the salts behind.
In recent years, there has been an increase in the implementation of these processes on large and small scales. To desalinate water for larger areas, desalination plants have been put into place. But with the construction of these energy extensive plants, a new question is posed: are the plants worth their cost?
To substantialize the argument of whether or not these plants justify the cost, two Southern California plants in particular will be investigated, the Carlsbad Desalination Project and the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Facility. These two plants are both in the vicinity of Los Angeles and neither of these plants are active currently.
The Carlsbad Desalination Project is projected to be the biggest desalination plant in the nation. Both the Carlsbad and the Huntington plants use reverse osmosis techniques, which as stated above, are very expensive and energy and intensive. However, this source of water does give the San Diego area water stability that is not subject to drought and that does not rely on diversion from the Colorado River. The plant, when it’s fully up and running should be producing 50 million gallons a day, reaching 7% of the region’s demand.
Unfortunately the cost to build the plant alone is around $734 million. On top of these costs, it will be approximately $2,014 to $2,257 per acre-foot of water produced. As of now, it only costs about $1,000 per acre-foot of water through the Water Authority. The desalination plant shows a clear increase in price per acre-foot of water. Another cost that needs to be taken into account is the fact that these plants are at sea level because they are using the salt water from oceans. This means that to transport the water anywhere, it most likely needs to be pumped uphill from the sea level plant. Though no concrete numbers could be found for how much it would cost to pump this water, it will be high, because water in large quantities can be quite heavy.
The Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Facility will have much of the same benefits and costs of the Carlsbad facility. It too should supply about 50 million gallons of water to its surrounding region once it is up and running. Due to the smaller size, this plant is projected to cost only $350 million dollars to build, but this is still a significant sum of money. It will also cost around $2,000 per acre-foot of water, which is more than it currently costs.
The downside to all of these costs is that at least some of the money has to come from the people that are receiving water from the plants. Clearly some of the money for these costs will come from the state of California, or even from the cities and counties of the respective plants. However, most people will see an increase in their water bills to account for the greater cost of their water.
Some might say that these plants are worth the costs, because it gives reliable, fresh water to many people in the surrounding areas. And with the fact that large amounts of water are being diverted away from other bodies of water, such as the Colorado River, it would make sense to get water from local sources. If there were no viable alternatives to desalination, the building of these plants and future plants would make a lot of sense.
However, water conservation and water recycling are much more cost efficient ways to obtain more water. Conserving and recycling water allows for water that is already being utilized to be used again and prevents the need for finding new sources of water, such as the ocean. This then eliminates all of the expenses that come along with desalination plants. Conserving water is straightforward; it is just simply using less water, or using the same amount in more effective ways. For example, taking shorter showers is a way to use less water. Watering plants and lawns at night is a way to more efficiently use water, so not as much of it will evaporate and more of it will make it to its intended targets, the plants or grass. The possibilities of using less water are endless; people just have to be willing to change their routines.
Recycling water would be a process of taking used water, treating it, and reusing it right away instead of putting it back into natural water ways or ground water. Many people have issues with using this “grey water,” but it is actually cleaner after being treated, and it saves money and water. If the stigma of using this water can be overcome, then this could be a very efficient way to use water.
These alternatives to desalination force us to recommend against the high costs of these plants. There are more cost effective and environmentally friendly ways to obtain water; they just have to be utilized. Overall, research shows that desalination plants are very expensive and that the rewards may be too little to justify the steep costs.
By Ashley Erickson and Devin Grigsby.
Ashley is a sophomore from Cincinnati, Ohio. She is currently an environmental science and health major at the University of Southern California and hopes to one day have a career as a pediatric oncologist. As for now, she loves taking her environmental science classes, and wants to continue to learn about ways to make the earth a better place for everyone to live.
Devin is a sophomore, undeclared major. He went to high school in Seattle, WA. He is particularly interested in sustainability and agriculture. He enjoys traveling, athletics, and music. Believer in Karma.
Barringer, Felicity. “California, What Price Water?” The New York Times 28 Feb. 2013. NYTimes.com. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.
“Carlsbad Desalination Project.” San Diego County Water Authority. San Diego County Water Authority, 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Elimelech, M., and W. A. Phillip. “The Future of Seawater Desalination: Energy, Technology, and the Environment.” Science 333.6043 (2011): 712-17.Web.
Fletcher, Jaimee L. “H.B. Desalination Debate Heats Up Again, This Time Over Costs.” Orange County Register. 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.
Popper, K., R. L. Merson, and W. M. Camirand. “Desalination by Osmosis-Reverse Osmosis Couple.” Science 159.3821 (1968): 1364-365. Web.
“Proposed Desalination Facility in Huntington Beach Wins Permit.” Web log post. L.A. Now. The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.
Szytell, Jeff. “Supply from the Sea: Exploring Ocean Desalination.” American Water Works Association 97.2 (2005): 54-57. JSTOR. Web. 28 Jan. 2013.
Wesner, G.M., and Russel L. Culp. “Wastewater Reclamation and Seawater Desalination.” Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 44.10 (1972): 1932-939. Web.