ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

Or think of a set of 100 "desalination stations" sprawling across Arizona, pumping out and then removing the salts from brackish groundwater to make it safe to drink.

Or, picture a full-scale desalination plant operating on Camp Pendleton north of San Diego, whose production of freshly treated drinking water would provide Southern California enough extra supplies to give Arizona some of its Colorado River supplies.

These ideas come from three companies that have filed applications with an Arizona water financing authority to be considered for financial help for planning and building future projects to augment our shrinking and imperiled water supplies.

They're among 17 applications received from 11 companies and other entities by the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority of Arizona.

The agency is charged by the Legislature with finding ways to augment with water produced in this state or imported from out of state. Seventy-five percent of the water obtained by the authority must be imported, under a 2022 state law.

These applications represent the first step in what looms as a highly complex, controversy-laden and detailed process that could lead to construction of desalination plants or other projects costing billions of dollars and bringing possibly billions of gallons of new water supplies to the state.

The authority has already concluded from interviews with various water utility officials that Arizona could run 100,000 to 500,000 acre-feet short of water over the next 10 to 15 years. Looking farther ahead, the Arizona Department of Water Resources has said the state could be up to 1.5 million acre-feet short of water by 2060.

But big importation projects such as desalination plants also have plenty of critics. They say it's too expensive, or too environmentally damaging to marine life in the areas where the seawater is pulled in and later discharged in the form of concentrated brine back into the ocean.

Due to the nature of the agency's complex process for reviewing augmentation plans, these three projects haven't been formally proposed yet. None of the 17 applications have formally proposed details of any sort of project, in fact.

Instead, the applicants have responded only to a request from the authority to lay out their qualifications for planning, building and operating water projects that could deliver up to 500,000 acre-feet of water a year. (Tucson Water customers use a total of around 100,000 acre-feet a year.)

The authority won't disclose details of any of the 17 applications. It says its hands are tied by state law that requires the authority to keep confidential all information submitted by companies seeking contracts under state procurement law, until the agency awards contracts to the winners.

The only exception is the authority must make public names of the applicants, agency Director Chelsea McGuire said.

From those names, the Star was able to track down and interview applicants about the water train proposal, the desalination station proposal and the Southern California desal plant proposal.

The list of applicants contained three other companies or teams of companies that had previously filed with the state details of projects they were interested in pursuing. Their officials didn't respond to requests from the Star for interviews.

Desalting stations across Arizona

Of the three publicly known proposed projects, one from a Phoenix-area entrepreneur and inventor is by far the most ambitious and likely the most expensive.

Deluge Technologies Inc. wants to build four projects, all involving the desalination of seawater or brackish — highly salty — groundwater. The company estimates its proposals could provide Arizona with around 410,000 acre-feet of water annually, at a total construction cost of $9.25 billion.

One project would involve building a set of about 100 "desalting stations" across ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV over five years. Each could produce about 1 million gallons a day of desalinated brackish groundwater. While patches of such groundwater supplies are spread statewide, Deluge's primary focus would be building in and around Buckeye, one of the country's fastest growing cities and home to a plentiful supply of brackish groundwater.

It's also proposing a major revamping and reworking of the long idle Yuma Desalination Plant, build in the early 1990s to remove salts from heavily brackish groundwater in the Yuma area so the clean water could be sent to Mexico to meet U.S. treaty obligations to that country. It's never been used except for testing.

The prospect of starting up that plant has alarmed many environmentalists, because much of that area's brackish groundwater is now discharged into a nearby marshy area known as the Cienega de Santa Clara. It has become a renowned natural area, drawing many bird species. Deluge said it would replace the water now going to the cienega with other brackish supplies.

A third project would build a full-scale desalination plant to purify about 150,000 acre-feet a year to drinking quality. The plant would be located just east of Yuma and would also include a pipeline to take the desalted water north to the Buckeye area. From there, it would be deposited into the Central Arizona Project canal system that delivers water to Phoenix and Tucson.

A fourth project would build the Cholla Desalting Plant at Cholla Lake near Joseph City in northeast Arizona. It would clean up about 82,000 acre-feet a year of additional brackish groundwater, and, Deluge officials say, generate almost as much electricity as the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix. That's because the plant's desalted water would be sent via pipeline to Phoenix — generating electricity as it runs downhill along Interstates 40 and 17.

Despite the entire proposal's high price tag, Deluge President Brian Hageman said his company has held down the projects' total cost and energy use through a technology that relies on hot water instead of electricity to generate the power to run the desalination plants.

"We get water heated from solar. We will build a solar collection facility that provides 180-degree water. Our fuel is sunlight rather than energy," Hageman told the Star. "We use 90% less electricity than traditional means (of desalination)."

But this proposal already has some skeptics.

Jennifer Pitt of the National Audubon Society has long opposed the opening and use of the Yuma Desalination Plant because of the impacts on the Cienega de Santa Clara.

But on Thursday, Pitt took a different tack, saying Deluge's proposal "seems extraordinarily expensive and complex, requiring multiple desalination facilities, long-distance pipelines, and international treaty agreements. I would expect any number of other ideas to emerge that are cheaper, faster, and less likely to harm important environmental resources.�

Sarah Porter, a top Arizona State University water researcher, noted that Arizona's Groundwater Management Act would not allow the pumping out of brackish groundwater in areas such as Buckeye right now for new housing development. That's because the Arizona Department of Water Resources has stopped allowing new subdivisions to be built in that area and other parts of exurban Phoenix when they rely on groundwater.

Outside urban areas such as Phoenix and Tucson, groundwater use isn't regulated, but companies such as Deluge wouldn't be allowed to transport purified brackish groundwater outside most rural groundwater basins, said Porter, director of ASU's Kyl Center for Water Policy.

A notable exception is the Harquahala Basin directly west of Phoenix, one of three groundwater basins where the state allows transfers of groundwater to another basin.

Confidentiality of process is controversial

When it comes to handling big water augmentation project proposals, the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority pf Arizona has done a 180-degree shift.

Its first entry into the desalination issue more than two years ago left a bad taste for many water experts. They felt the state was rushing to approve an Israeli firm's proposal to build a $5 billion desalination plant along the Sea of Cortez in Sonora. That proposal won initial approval from the authority's governing board to start more detailed negotiations, but was later discarded after legislators and environmental activists accused the authority of conducting a backroom deal.

Now, the authority is running a painstakingly prolonged, three-part effort to find what it considers the best projects to increase the state's water supply. But it's still drawing criticism, partly because of its refusal to release details of the proposals it's now reviewing.

It's also drawing criticism because it's considering which companies are most qualified to select for doing detailed analyses of their projects without simultaneously reviewing specific project proposals.

Sometime in July, the authority's board will select companies or other entities it considers to have the most qualified teams. Entities submitting proposals "must demonstrate experience in engineering, constructing, operating, maintaining and financing water augmentation projects."

Those companies then move into a second phase in which the authority pays them to produce a detailed analysis of their actual projects.

Once those analyses are complete, the authority will determine if it should enter into a contract with one or more of the companies to build an actual project. The agency hasn't set a timeline for wrapping up this work.

For now, however, the authority is refusing to release any information about the teams the project proponents have assembled, citing a state procurement law that forbids the agency from disclosing such information.

When the various project proponents conduct their state-financed analyses of projects, and when the agency considers signing specific contracts with companies to build projects, those specifics will be discussed in public meetings, said McGuire, the authority director. But the agency won't release the initial proposals submitted by various companies until after it makes final project awards, she said.

"During Phase II, any interested party will have myriad opportunities to raise concerns, identify potential pitfalls, and thereby influence our Board’s decision making before WIFA commits to any project," McGuire said, using an acronym for the authority..

Confidentiality is "essential" for protecting the integrity of the initial process, she said.

"During a procurement, potential respondents must be given equal opportunity to compete for selection, and the procurement’s proponents must be careful not to show partiality or create an advantage for one respondent over another. Sealed bids are a common tool for accomplishing that outcome, especially when dealing, as we are here, with potential investment of public funds," McGuire said.

"Confidentiality in responses actually prevents abuse, because successful parties are selected solely on the strength of their submissions, not on indirect lobbying, PR campaigns, or other gaming of the system," she said.

It seems wrong that they are not sharing this information, countered Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter.

"The last thing we need relative to water in Arizona are more backdoor deals," Bahr said.

"It seems to me they could provide basic information about what was being proposed and at what cost, even if they don’t give out the whole contract. They could pull out the information in the interest of transparency. We're talking about a lot of money here."

McGuire replied that state doesn't allow the authority to release any details from the proposals.

She also emphasized to the Star that the agency today isn't considering specific project proposals — just the teams of experts each project proponent has put forth. Asked directly if these companies and other entities have informed the authority of any details of their planned projects, McGuire replied that under state law, "I’m unable to discuss specifics of any particular proposal."

"WIFA is, and always has been, agnostic as to the type of projects we desire to develop in order to import water into the state. We want to vet projects against one another to determine which projects best serve the interests of Arizona," McGuire said. "We have structured this process to maintain that open mind and ensure that no type of project is given priority over another."

Longtime water researcher and watchdog Kathleen Ferris took issue with McGuire's reasoning.

"It looks to me like the good people at WIFA are doing their best to follow the law and find a winning project. But how can you know what skill sets you need until you figure out what the project is?" asked Ferris, a former director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, which represents 10 Phoenix-area cities.

"Everyone has different skills and projects aren’t alike. It’s like having a psychiatrist apply for a job when what’s really needed is a brain surgeon," Ferris said.

She was also skeptical of one of the water authority's reasons for confidentiality in reviewing the initial round of project proposals, the state law notwithstanding.

“Does the authority intend that its board will not know the names of the respondents? If not, how is indirect lobbying, etc. prevented?� Ferris said.

McGuire responded that potential and current respondents to its solicitation for proposals are prohibited from communicating about the solicitation with any authority board or staff members aside from its procurement officer.

"When it comes to indirect lobbying, keeping the content of bids confidential ensures fair competition and limits outside influence on the process. That is why the use of sealed bids is a fundamental part of the vast majority of procurement processes," McGuire said.

Shipping via existing rail lines

The water train proposal before the authority wouldn't come close to wiping out Arizona's gap in water supply and demand. But it could make a difference in smaller cities and towns that are already struggling with water issues, said the president of Water Train, Inc., a Medford, Oregon-area company that's proposing to start delivering water to this state by rail.

The company has been in business for about 15 years, using railroad cars to deliver water it has obtained rights to in aquifers and springs in Kentucky and New York state, said David Rangel, Water Train's president. It currently ships water across the country in 266 tank cars that each deliver about 25,500 gallons to private and government customers, which he declined to disclose.

"We ship via existing rail lines. No infrastructure needs to be built. Rail lines go to downtown Phoenix, to Flagstaff and Williams. We can do rapid deployment. We’re not having to use a lake or a river. We don’t have to deal with permitting issues or the Army Corps or anything like that.

"We estimate we could be up and running in Arizona in 18 months."

Rangel noted that the state water authority's minimum water delivery for an augmentation project is 10,000 acre-feet a year.

The company's fleet of cars has the capacity to send out double or triple that amount, but the total amount it could deliver to Arizona depends on the capacity of the region's rail lines. Ideally, the company would like to dispatch five or six trains to Arizona daily, each carrying about 122 cars, he said.

"We have to share with Amtrak, Union Pacific and UPS," he said. "The availability of the water is not that big of a deal. The question will be, will we be able to meet the needs in the future?"

Water Train might not have a big impact on Phoenix, Tempe or Tucson, he said. But if its water was available to Show Low, Flagstaff or Williams, it could make a difference there, said Rangel, adding, "We are able to service really all of Arizona."

The company would have to expand its network of points where it can unload water from rail cars. It has already selected two sites and is looking for a third and fourth, he said.

"We're trying to do this as cheaply as possible, to build and add capacity," he said. "We're scalable. We can go up and down. It depends on needs and demands."

But he won't know how much he'd have to charge to deliver water here "until the paperwork is signed," he said.

"The real wildcard in this is cost of transportation," he said. "I can't forecast what the cost of transportation will be in 24 months."

Getting some of Calif.'s river water

The third publicly known proposal would build a desalination plant on the Southern California coast, at Camp Pendleton north of San Diego. The proposal from Palo Alto-based Oceanus LLC is already filed with the U.S. Navy but has heard no feedback yet, said Neal Aronson, the company's CEO.

"We would try to serve some communities in southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. It's an opportunity to try to swap Colorado River water with Arizona. It (Arizona) would get Colorado River water. Our project would replace that water in California," said Aronson. There's no way they would deliver desalinated water to Arizona, he said.

The company will invest in technologies at the plant to minimize the impacts on marine life which enter the plant through its water intake structures, he said.

"There are ways to reduce them. They're not cheap," said Aronson of the techniques used to limit what's called impingement and entrainment of fish. Impingement occurs when the intakes suck fish and other marine life into the plant. Entrainment occurs when the fish are trapped against a screen in the intakes and can't pull away.

Regarding another major environmental concern with desalination, the discharge of heavily concentrated brine wastewater left over after the seawater is purified, the company is looking at integrating its plant with a direct air capture system that uses brine to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, he said.

The company would employ a process that turns brine into what amounts to a carbon sponge, he said. It significantly reduces but doesn't eliminate brine discharges, he said.

"Instead of releasing it into the marine environment, we use it for carbon capture," he said of the brine. The process captures atmospheric carbon — carbon found in the air instead of in the ground or in water, he said.

Oceanus' project has no current cost estimate, Aronson added.

"There's a lot of variables that go into play here. I can't give you a price at the moment," he said.

As the authority's process for selecting projects continues, prospective developers will do analyses to get them to the point where they make a real proposal "and give them a number," that would be refined as the state agency's project selection process continues, Aronson said.

His project's success in Arizona depends on its ability to gain the Navy's approval for construction at Camp Pendleton, he acknowledged.

"There is no magic source of water. We live in the laws of physics. Water is an expensive thing to try to make and to deliver. They are looking at delivering half a million acre-feet," Aronson said of the water authority. "The only way to get to that is through desal.

"These projects are expensive to build and risky to develop. Ultimately, if they can help reduce the risk and mitigate some of the costs" of desalination, it could work, he said.