***WATER REUSE CP***1ncText: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development of water recycling technology.

Water recycling can solve scarcity - California provesCooley, Director of the Pacific Institutes Water Program, june 2014Heather, (She conducts and oversees research on an array of water issues, such as the connections between water and energy, sustainable water use and management, and the hydrologic impacts of climate change. As a Pacific Institute staff member, Ms. Cooley has authored numerous scientific papers and co-authored five books, including The Worlds Water, A 21st Century U.S. Water Policy, and The Water-Energy Nexus in the American West.) (Water Reuse Potential in California online: http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/06/ca-water-reuse.pdf)

For this analysis, we assumed that the technical potential for water reuse in California is equivalent to the states indoor water use. While it is unlikely that we will soon reuse all of the water used in our homes, much of this water could be captured and reused onsite or treated at a municipal wastewater treatment plant and distributed as recycled water. On the basis of data from DWR for 20012010, we estimated that indoor water use in California averages 4.2 million acre-feet per year. By implementing indoor efficiency improvements, indoor use could decline by 40 to 54 percent, thereby reducing the amount of water available for reuse. We therefore estimated that the water reuse potential is equivalent to our estimate of efficient indoor water use and ranges from 1.9 million to 2.5 million acre-feet per year (Heberger et al. 2014). Approximately 64 percent of the water reuse potential is from residences; the remainder is from commercial businesses and institutions (21 percent) and industry (15 percent). Some of this reuse is already occurring. According to the most recent state survey, current recycled water use in California is 670,000 acre-feet per year (SWRCB and DWR 2012). Thus, the potential for additional water reuse in California today is 1.2 million to 1.8 million acre-feet per year. Two-thirds of the reuse potential is in coastal areas where wastewater is discharged into the ocean or into rivers that drain directly into the ocean. In these areas, expanding water reuse may provide water supply and water quality benefits. We estimated that 0.9 million to 1.1 million acre-feet per year could be reused in coastal areas. The remainder of the reuse potential (0.3 million to 0.7 million acre-feet per year) is in inland areas. While water reuse may not produce new supply in these areas because that water may already be reused by a downstream user, it can improve the reliability of water supplies, and by replacing the use of potable water, provide energy savings and environmental benefits, such as, requiring less water to be extracted from rivers and streams. This is a conservative estimate for several reasons. First, it assumed a high degree of indoor water efficiency. In reality, indoor water efficiency is unlikely to reach its full technical potential, and thus the reuse potential may be higher. Second, it did not take into account population growth, which can increase the amount of wastewater produced and thus the reuse potential. Third, it assumed that all of this water is reused for irrigation or some other consumptive use and thus can be reused only once. However, if that water is used inside a home or business or to recharge a groundwater aquifer, it may be possible to reuse the water several times.2 Finally, we did not include inflow and infiltration, which refer to rainwater and groundwater that enter the sanitary sewer system through cracked pipes, leaky manholes, or improperly connected storm drains and roof gutter downspouts and is transported to the wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated and discharged. Thus, the water reuse potential is likely to be higher. ConClusions Water reuse provides a reliable, local water supply that reduces vulnerability to droughts and other water-supply constraints. It can also provide economic and environmental benefits, for example by reducing energy use, diversions from rivers and streams, and pollution from wastewater discharges. There is tremendous opportunity to expand water reuse in California. We estimate that the water reuse potential in California, beyond what has already been achieved, ranges from 1.2 million to 1.8 million acre-feet per year. Two-thirds of the reuse potential is in coastal areas where wastewater is discharged into the ocean or into streams that drain into the ocean. In these areas, expanding water reuse may provide both water supply and water quality benefits

Water Reuse CP2NC Solvency Wall

Water recycling solves - water scarcity

Reusing Water Solves Scarcity and Reduces Water CostsWinpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., no dateThe Wealth of Waste The economics of wastewater use in agriculture online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/FAO_WR35_Summary_17092010.pdfReuse as a response to water scarcity Many regions of the world are experiencing growing water stress. This arises from a relentless growth of demand for water in the face of static, or diminishing, supply and periodic droughts due to climatic factors. Water stress is also caused by pollution from increasing amounts of wastewater from expanding cities, much of it only partially treated, and from the contamination of aquifers from various sources. Such water pollution makes scarcity worse by reducing the amount of freshwater that is safe to use. Water scarcity in all its aspects has serious economic, social and even political costs. At times of serious scarcity, national authorities are inclined to divert water from farmers to cities since water has a higher economic value in urban and industrial use than for most agricultural purposes. In these circumstances, the use of reclaimed water in agriculture enables freshwater to be exchanged for more economically and socially valuable purposes, while providing farmers with reliable and nutrient-rich water. This exchange also has potential environmental benefits, reducing the pollution of wastewater downstream and allowing the assimilation of its nutrients into plants. Recycling water can potentially offer a triple dividend - to urban users, farmers and the environment. Reclaimed water use can help to mitigate the damaging effects of local water scarcity. It is not the only option for bringing supply and demand into a better balance and WR35 shows how different options can be analysed for comparison but in many cases it is a cost-effective solution, as the growing number of reuse schemes in different parts of the world testify. A recent comprehensive survey found over 3,300 water reclamation facilities worldwide. Agriculture is the predominant user of reclaimed water, and its use for this purpose has been reported in around 50 countries, on 10% of all irrigated land. Benefits of reus The feasibility of reuse will depend on local circumstances, which will affect the balance of costs and benefits. The major benefit in most cases is likely to be the value of the fresh water exchanged for high-value urban or industrial use. This would lessen the cost for municipal authorities of seeking their supplies through more expensive means. In addition, reuse prevents untreated wastewater discharge to coastal and groundwater systems with ecosystem and tourism benefits. Depending on the local situation, there could also be benefits to farmers if they can avoid some of the costs of pumping groundwater, while the nutrient present in the wastewater could save some of the expense of fertilizer. There could also be benefits to the local environment from reduced flows of untreated wastewater though the interruption in the downstream water cycle could have other, less beneficial, effects. Costs of reuse The costs of the reuse option could include the installation or upgrade of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to produce effluent of the desired standard, any addition or modification to the infrastructure for water and reclaimed water distribution, the extra recurrent costs of treatment, and the cost of any produce restrictions imposed by the use of reclaimed water in irrigation. Where climatic and geographical features are suitable, low-cost treatment of wastewater may be an option through the use of stabilisation ponds, constructed wetlands, etc. The net cost of treatment may also be reduced through the reuse of biogas for energy and power in the intensive treatment processes, or potentially through the sale of carbon offsets

A2A2: hurts environmentWater Reuse Helps Environment, controls water, supplies ecosystems with water, and reduces pollutionMcGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)

In addition to providing a dependable, locally-controlled water supply, water recycling provides tremendous environmental benefits. By providing an additional source of water, water recycling can help us find ways to decrease the diversion of water from sensitive ecosystems. Other benefits include decreasing wastewater discharges and reducing and preventing pollution. Recycled water can also be used to create or enhance wetlands and riparian habitats.

Increases Water Flow, Decreases Water Discharge to Ecosystems, and Much More.McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)

Water Recycling Can Decrease Diversion of Freshwater from Sensitive Ecosystems Plants, wildlife, and fish depend on sufficient water flows to their habitats to live and reproduce. The lack of adequate flow, as a result of diversion for agricultural, urban, and industrial purposes, can cause deterioration of water quality and ecosystem health. People who reuse water can supplement their demands by using a reliable source of recycled water, which can free considerable amounts of water for the environment and increase flows to vital ecosystems. Water Recycling Decreases Discharge to Sensitive Water Bodies In some cases, the impetus for water recycling comes not from a water supply need, but from a need to eliminate or decrease wastewater discharge to the ocean, an estuary, or a stream. For example, high volumes of treated wastewater discharged from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant into the south San Francisco Bay threatened the area's natural salt water marsh. In response, a $140 million recycling project was completed in 1997. The South Bay Water Recycling Program has the capacity to provide 21 million gallons per day of recycled water for use in irrigation and industry. By avoiding the conversion of salt water marsh to brackish marsh, the habitat for two endangered species can be protected. Recycled Water May Be Used to Create or Enhance Wetlands and Riparian (Stream) Habitats. Wetlands provide many benefits, which include wildlife and wildfowl habitat, water quality improvement, flood diminishment, and fisheries breeding grounds. For streams that have been impaired or dried from water diversion, water flow can be augmented with recycled water to sustain and improve the aquatic and wildlife habitat. Water Recycling Can Reduce and Prevent Pollution When pollutant discharges to oceans, rivers, and other water bodies are curtailed, the pollutant loadings to these bodies are decreased. Moreover, in some cases, substances that can be pollutants when discharged to a body of water can be beneficially reused for irrigation. For example, recycled water may contain higher levels of nutrients, such as nitrogen, than potable water. Application of recycled water for agricultural and landscape irrigation can provide an additional source of nutrients and lessen the need to apply synthetic fertilizers.

Recycling Water is More Energy Efficient Than Water Desalination and Provides More Water for Less EnergyMcGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)

Recycling Water Can Save Energy As the demand for water grows, more water is extracted, treated, and transported sometimes over great distances which can require a lot of energy. If the local source of water is ground water, the level of ground water becomes lower as more water is removed and this increases the energy required to pump the water to the surface. Recycling water on site or nearby reduces the energy needed to move water longer distances or pump water from deep within an aquifer. Tailoring water quality to a specific water use also reduces the energy needed to treat water. The water quality required to flush a toilet is less stringent than the water quality needed for drinking water and requires less energy to achieve. Using recycled water that is of lower quality for uses that dont require high quality water saves energy and money by reducing treatment requirements. Reusing water to save energy is more thoroughly discussed in the California Energy Commissions 2005 report: California's Water - Energy Relationship (CEC#700-2005-011-SF). This report highlights the large amount of energy required to treat and distribute water. Energy is required first in collecting, extracting, conveying, and distributing water to end users and second in treating and disposing of the wastewater once the end users have finished with it. Although it requires additional energy to treat wastewater for recycling, the amount of energy required to treat and/or transport other sources of water is generally much greater.

Water Reuse is More Beneficial Safer, Provides More Water, Saves Energy, and Costs less.McGovern, Environmental Protection Specialist, 12/24/2013(Cheryl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/#info)

How Can Recycled Water Benefit Us? Recycled water can satisfy most water demands, as long as it is adequately treated to ensure water quality appropriate for the use. The Treatment and Uses chart shows types of treatment processes and suggested uses at each level of treatment. In uses where there is a greater chance of human exposure to the water, more treatment is required. As for any water source that is not properly treated, health problems could arise from drinking or being exposed to recycled water if it contains disease-causing organisms or other contaminants. EPA regulates many aspects of wastewater treatment and drinking water quality, and the majority of states in the US have established criteria or guidelines for the beneficial use of recycled water. In addition EPA developed a technical document entitled Guidelines for Water Reuse (PDF) (28pp, 614K) About PDF) which contains a summary of state requirements, and guidelines for the treatment and uses of recycled water. State and Federal regulatory oversight has successfully provided a framework to ensure the safety of the many water recycling projects that have been developed in the United States. Recycled water is most commonly used for non-potable (not for drinking) purposes, such as agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. Other non-potable applications include cooling water for power plants and oil refineries, industrial process water for such facilities as paper mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial lakes. Although most water recycling projects have been developed to meet non-potable water demands, a number of projects use recycled water indirectly for potable purposes. These projects include recharging ground water aquifers and augmenting surface water reservoirs with recycled water. In ground water recharge projects, recycled water can be spread or injected into ground water aquifers to augment ground water supplies, and to prevent salt water intrusion in coastal areas. For example, since 1976, the Water Factory 21 Direct Injection Project, located in Orange County, California, has been injecting highly treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent salt water intrusion, while augmenting the potable ground water supply. While numerous successful ground water recharge projects have been operated for many years, planned augmentation of surface water reservoirs has been less common. However, there are some existing projects and others in the planning stages. For example, since 1978, the upper Occoquan Sewage Authority has been discharging recycled water into a stream above Occoquan Reservoir, a potable water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia. In San Diego, California, the Indirect Potable Reuse Reservoir Augmentation Project is currently being studied. If deemed technically feasible and approved by the City Council and Mayor, this project would augment the San Vicente Reservoir with 12,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water treated at a new Advanced Water Treatment Plant. The use of gray water at decentralized sites (see definition) for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing reduces the amount of potable water distributed to these sites, the amount of fertilizer needed, and the amount of wastewater generated, transported, and treated at wastewater treatment facilities. In other words, water reuse saves water, energy, and money. Decentralized water reuse systems are being used more in the arid west where long term drought conditions exist. Successful gray water systems have been operating for many years,. They can meet up to 50% of a property's water needs by supplying water for landscaping. Recycling gray water saves fresh potable water for other uses, reduces the volume of wastewater going to septic systems and wastewater treatment plants, and increases infrastructure capacity for new users.Waste Disposal Will Be BannedMoristen and Carsten, contributors to The Independent, October 2011(Sarah and Paul, online: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/un-close-to-ban-on-wests-toxic-waste-exports-2374685.html)

A UN environmental conference in Cartagena, Colombia, attended by more than 170 countries, has agreed to accelerate a global ban on the export of hazardous waste, including old electronics and discarded computers and mobile phones, from developed to developing countries. Environmental campaigners, who have been battling to broker a deal on the dumping of toxic waste for more than 20 years, said they were "ecstatic" about this "major breakthrough". Kevin Stairs, Greenpeace's EU chemicals policy director, told The Independent on Sunday: "This is a great breakthrough for the environment and human health. Finally, the way forward into forcing developed countries to assume responsibility for their own hazardous waste and stop shipping it to developing countries has been agreed. "All forms of hazardous waste including that sent for recycling, to obsolete electronic waste, will be banned from leaving wealthy countries destined for developing countries."

A2: Spending Links

No Link to Spending - Costs Are LowerWinpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., no dateThe Wealth of Waste The economics of wastewater use in agriculture online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/FAO_WR35_Summary_17092010.pdf

Economic justification The economic appraisal of the project should be from a regional basin viewpoint, comparing its economic costs and benefits. Judging by the evidence of our case studies, it is unlikely that schemes could be economically justified with reference only to agriculture. Although farmers may be net beneficiaries from using treated wastewater, compared with their previous or alternative sources of water, this depends very much on local circumstances, and in any event their net benefits are unlikely to offset the full costs of the scheme. On the other hand, the benefits to urban and industrial users could be relatively sizeable, and in most cases would be the principal justification for the project. The net impact of the project on the local and downstream environment will also be very site-specific, and there are likely to be both benefits and costs. Financial feasibility Once the basic economic justification of the project is established, the next step is to examine its financial feasibility. The distribution of the costs and benefits of the project between different stakeholders is crucial to its feasibility. Its impact on the finances of the various stakeholders national government, regional water authority, farmers, municipal utility and/or other major players should be assessed. Financial gainers and payers should be identified to gauge the incentives, or conversely the penalties, to be applied and the type of funding that would be appropriate. Water charges, taxes, subsidies, soft loans, environmental service payments, and other instruments could all form part of the financing proposals. A planning framework The economic framework for wastewater reuse is intended to fit within a comprehensive planning framework. A sound and methodical planning approach will assist in identifying all the relevant factors necessary for the decision to proceed with a project. WR35 presents such a planning framework, its key elements being: identification of problem and project objectives; definition of study area and background information; market assessment and market assurances; identification of project alternatives; appraisal and ranking of project alternatives; and implementation. Among the major specific technical issues to be addressed are: facilities and infrastructure, balancing supply and demand, wastewater quality, and public health risks and safeguards. Factors essential for the success of reuse projects The feasibility of reuse projects hinges on several key factors. The physical and geographical features of the area should be conducive to an exchange of water rights between the parties concerned. The extra costs (of treatment and infrastructure) should be affordable in relation to benefits. Farmers should be supportive, which depends on the net impact on their incomes, the status of their rights to freshwater, and what are their alternatives. Public health authorities should be satisfied that the projects pose no undue risks, after reasonable precautions have been taken. Finally, the environmental impact should be acceptable: the same impact may be acceptable or not in different circumstances, and different authorities will place a different weight on specific impacts in forming an overall judgement. A reality check case studies from Spain and Mexico On a global scale, only a small proportion of treated wastewater is currently used for agriculture, but the practice is growing in many countries, and in some regions a high proportion of reclaimed water is used in irrigation. The variety of case material presented from Spain and Mexico provides a good field testing of Methodologies of Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effective Analyses. The case study results demonstrates that the methodology presented for appraising wastewater reuse projects is viable. Although the Cost-Benefit Analysis analytical framework is well able to incorporate the interests of municipalities and farmers, there is an important third party at the table the environment which needs a champion and a custodian. Reflecting the needs of the environment, valuing its assets and services, and ensuring that its financing needs are met, is a challenge to analysts in this area. The case studies confirm that reuse is an area ripe for the application and refinement of the tools of environmental cost-benefit analysis. The case material demonstrates that certain items of costs and benefits are more robust than others. On the cost side, the capital costs of treatment units, pumps and canals can be estimated with high confidence, and their operating costs (pumping, chemicals, labour, etc.) are also fairly evident. The technology of wastewater treatment and its future level of unit costs are liable to change, and future options should not be prematurely foreclosed. Most of the case studies stress the perceived benefits to farmers from the nutrient properties of effluent, plus savings in groundwater pumping and the greater reliability of effluent compared with other sources of water in arid and semi-arid climates. While pumping costs are reasonably firm, the benefits of fertilization depend on local empirical evidence (with and without project). The value of reliable wastewater also needs to be demonstrated more convincingly, e.g., by a closer study of farmers response behavior where water supply is erratic or scarce. From the viewpoint of urban water demand, the case studies reflect the widespread view that water supply tariffs are too low, hence there is a pervasive underestimation of the benefits created by developing new solutions to growing demand. However, some of the cases illustrate the importance of distinguishing genuinely new benefits, on the one hand, from the avoided costs of meeting existing demand in a different way. The analysis of the case studies has implications for policy towards the use of reclaimed water, depending on what its principal objectives are: as a feasible and cost-effective means of meeting the growing demands of agriculture for water in regions of growing water scarcity and competition for its use. This motive also applies in situations where demand is not necessarily rising, but where periodic water scarcity is a problem for farmers planning their annual crop patterns. The case studies contain evidence (revealed preferences) of farmers responding positively to the use of effluent in these situations, as a temporary expedient or long term solution. However, effluent reuse is one amongst a number of options at farm level to minimizing exposure to water risk. Moreover, the creation of expensive distribution and storage facilities, with a high recurrent cost, in order to furnish water for low value farm purposes, is not always warranted unless there are benefits to other sectors. as an environmental solution to the growing volume of wastewater effluent and its potential for downstream pollution. The Mexico City-Tula case is the clearest example of the mutual benefit for the City and farmers from disposing of urban sewage and effluent to agriculture and allowing natural processes to carry out some of the purification en route. Reuse schemes allow the dispersion of effluent and its assimilation across a wide area, as compared to the point source pollution from WWTPs. The reuse of effluent nutrients in crop production, rather than their removal and effective destruction during advanced processes of wastewater treatment also has a strong appeal to many Greens. The case studies confirm these environmental benefits of using reclaimed water. as a win-win project that is a solution to urban water demand, while also delivering the agricultural and environmental benefits stated above. The Llobregat sites and Durango City are clear-cut examples of potential win-win propositions since in both cases it is physically and geographically feasible for farmers to exchange their current entitlements to freshwater for effluent, and for the cities to gain access to the freshwater rights that are thus released. Whether or not win-win outcomes occur depends on legal and other barriers being overcome, as well as successful negotiation over the financial arrangements between the parties to the deal. It must not be assumed that farmers will readily give up their rights to freshwater, without further consideration of their operational situations. Most farmers prefer to have several water sources as insurance against drought. A cost-benefit approach helps to set the parameters for agreements between the main stakeholders, which in this report are assumed to be farmers, cities and the natural environment. It helps to define the interests of the parties in moving towards, or resisting, agreements that change the status quo. Where the balance between costs and benefits for one party (e.g. farmers) is very fine, the existence of a large potential net benefit to another (e.g. city or environment) can provide headroom for agreement by indicating the economic or financial bounty available to lubricate the deal. The overall message the report seeks to convey is that the recycling of urban wastewater is a key link in Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) that can fulfill several different, but interrelated objectives. These are expressed as win-win propositions, delivering simultaneous benefits to farmers, cities and natural environmental systems, part of the solutions to the urgent global problems of food, clean water, the safe disposal of wastes and the protection of vital aquatic ecosystems. The traditional linear society is not a sustainable solution and the circular society has to become the new standard. WR35 is based and contains an extensive bibliography, testimony to the large and growing interest amongst the professional and policy communities in this important topic.

Water Reuse is CheapWater Reuse Association, January2012WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION DESALINATION COMMITTEE Seawater Desalination Costs online: https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Paper.pdf

One of the most sensitive and critical aspects of any water project is cost. For membrane desalination, decreasing costs and producing superior water quality are among a number of significant reasons why this technology continues to be the water treatment technology of choice in the United States and around the world. This white paper serves to: provide an overview of cost drivers and components of the desalination process; present costs associated with desalination compared to other water supply alternatives; discuss challenges and perceptions; and highlight recent advances in desalination technology that affect the total delivered cost of water. Although membrane desalination was first commercialized in the United States in the late 1960s, reverse osmosis membrane technology was not widely implemented until the 1980s, largely due to the relatively high costs compared to other potable water treatment alternatives. Why have these costs decreased or appeared more reasonable and competitive over time? Although there are a number of reasons, the reduction in costs are primarily related to improvements in manufacturing methods, the changing facets of the regulatory environment in the United States, the increased market demand and competition for membranes, and the gradual depletion of more conventional groundwater sources. Since the early 1990s, one example of the successful implementation of reverse osmosis desalination technology is its designation as a best available technology (BAT) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for removal (and/or reduction) of numerous inorganic contaminants (e.g., antimony, arsenic, barium, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, boron, selenium, radionuclides), endocrine disrupting compounds (e.g., synthetic and natural hormones), and several pharmaceutical compounds. Together with a reduction in the membrane technology costs beginning in the 1980s, BAT designation became one other (albeit significant) technical component to consider in the process of developing and potentially implementing a desalination facility. Other decision factors are rooted in both technical and non-technical components of water supply projects such as timing, available space, and other specific locally-driven concerns. However, the determination of meaningful costs associated with membrane (including seawater membrane) desalination has proven a bit more elusive when applied without consideration of site specific issues or how the costs compare with other viable, reliable, and long-term water supply alternatives in the same locale.

A2: potential health risks

Monitoring drinking solvesHAL, Horticulture Australia Limited, no date(What are the potential risks associated with recycled water? online: http://www.recycledwater.com.au/index.php?id=69)

Other risks which require monitoring A broad range of chemicals have been identified as having the potential to alter normal endocrine function in animals, i.e. endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). At this stage, there is no evidence that environmental exposure to low levels of potential EDCs (potentially present in recycled water) affects human health because of the relatively low exposure. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure good risk management. Pharmaceutical chemicals and their metabolites, potentially found in recycled water, raise similar issues to EDCs (above). Health impacts from pharmaceuticals should also be minimal because of the relatively low exposure. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure good risk management.

New Recycling Technologies are Cleaner Than Tap Water Monks, 10:46 AM EDT, Thu May 1, 2014Kieron (From toilet to tap: Getting a taste for drinking recycled waste water online: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/from-toilet-to-tap-water/#)

But the introduction of reuse systems has been difficult, with a high degree of public skepticism. Orange County began recycling water for non-potable use in the 1970s, but only began contributing to the drinking supply in 2008, combined with a comprehensive PR and education campaign to allay public fears. Operators now feel the system is well established and ready to scale up. "It's a watershed moment right now, we're seeing widespread acceptance of these technologies," OCWD General Manager Mike Markus said. "As the shortages become more extreme and water supplies are cut, it has raised awareness that we need to find alternative resources." The process works by re-routing a proportion of the 1.3 billion gallons of waste water generated in Southern California each day into a three-step treatment. The first is microfiltration of the treated waste water to remove solids, oils and bacteria, before the resulting liquid goes through reverse osmosis, pushing it through a fine plastic membrane that filters out viruses and pharmaceuticals. The water is then treated with UV light to remove any remaining organic compounds, before joining the main groundwater supply, which must pass strict quality controls to meet legal standards, and distribution to households. The OCWD says the water exceeds all state and federal drinking water standards. Safety has also been established in pioneering projects around the world. Water-insecure Singapore, previously reliant on imports, now delivers 30% of its needs through the NEWater reclamation facility. Although only a small amount is added to its reservoirs, the output surpasses WHO standards for potable use to the extent that a high proportion is directed for industrial uses requiring ultra-clean water. One of the world's earliest schemes, in Windhoek, Namibia, has been in operation since 1968 and has tackled both shortage and water-borne diseases. Over half of the Sub Saharan African population faces water insecurity, and the greatest health risk, diarrhea, kills over a million people each year in the region. But research showed that in the 1970s disease occurred at lower rates for people supplied by the Windhoek plant than through conventional treated sources. "Standards are stricter because of the novelty of the technology and process," says Benedito Braga, President of the World Water Council. "The quality from sewage is very good, as good or better than the tap water in any city in the developed world." The message is now being heeded and the model is spreading. California has put $1 billion into funding recycling for potable use ($800 million of that in low-interest loans), with new initiatives launched in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. Texas, parts of which are also severely affected by drought, aims to generate 10% of all new supplies through reclaimed water by 2060. A facility in Big Spring has introduced the first "Direct Potable Reuse" scheme in the United States by sending recycled water to the final treatment plant without passing it through groundwater reserves.

A2 nutrient pollution

Management of Nutrients is Key to Solving Nutrient Pollution and it Occurs in The Status Quo AnywayEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 16, 2014(The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture online: http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture)

Farming operations can contribute to nutrient pollution when not properly managed. Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients can impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into ground waters. Fertilized soils and livestock can be significant sources of gaseous, nitrogen-based compounds like ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to aquatic life if large amounts are deposited to surface waters. Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas. There are many ways that agricultural operations can reduce nutrient pollution, including: Watershed efforts: The collaboration of a wide range of people and organizations often across an entire watershed is vital to reducing nutrient pollution. State governments, farm organizations, conservation groups, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and community groups all play a part in successful efforts to improve water quality. Nutrient management: Applying fertilizers in the proper amount, at the right time of year and with the right method can significantly reduce the potential for pollution. Cover crops: Planting certain grasses, grains or clovers can help keep nutrients out of the water by recycling excess nitrogen and reducing soil erosion. Buffers: Planting trees, shrubs and grass around fields, especially those that border water bodies, can help by absorbing or filtering out nutrients before they reach a water body. Conservation tillage: Reducing how often fields are tilled reduces erosion and soil compaction, builds soil organic matter, and reduces runoff. Managing livestock waste: Keeping animals and their waste out of streams, rivers and lakes keeps nitrogen and phosphorus out of the water and restores stream banks. Drainage water management: Reducing nutrient loadings that drain from agricultural fields helps prevent degradation of the water in local streams and lakes. Aff Reuse CPDisease

Water reuse causes diseases its not fit for human consumptionABC News, 2007(Scientists warn on recycled water disease risk, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-05-12/scientist-warns-on-recycled-water-disease-risk/2546550)

A Canberra microbiologist says recycling water for drinking purposes carries the risk of a major outbreak of disease. Both Canberra and Brisbane are considering recycling waste water as dam levels reach critically low levels. Professor Peter Collignon from Canberra Hospital says he supports the use of recycled water for industry or to irrigate lawns but it should only be used for drinking as a last resort. Prof Collignon, the director of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Canberra Hospital, says if something goes wrong with the filtering technology there is a risk large numbers of people could get sick. "You just have to have it go wrong one day in every three or five years and you could have potentially tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people exposed to a germ," he said.

Disease causes extinctionSteinbruner 98 John D, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution where he holds the Sydney Stein, Jr. chair in international security. He is also vice chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Science (Biological Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses, Foreign Policy Magazine)

It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 mil- lion people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera- once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback.As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across inter- national borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

CostsRecycling increases water costs in the US the larger the scale, the higher the cost for consumersJames A. Roumasset and Christopher A. Wada. Roussamasset is a Professor of the Department of Economics, Wada is a Senior Fellow at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.2010. [Optimal and Sustainable Groundwater Extraction. MDPI Journal]

For demand sectors that do not require potable water (e.g., industry, certain types of agriculture), lower quality water can serve as a substitute for extracted groundwater. Recycled wastewater is a natural substitute, especially in areas where residential consumption meets or exceeds withdrawals for non-potable water users. In regions where the scarcity value of groundwater is very high, some substitution is already occurring, but perhaps not as much as the casual observer might expect. One explanation is that non-potable water requires its own set of infrastructure, which adds a non-negligible cost to treatment and distribution costs. Implicitly, the unit cost of recycled wastewater is then an increasing function of distance to the treatment facility. If one imagines that users can be ordered by that distance, then the unit cost can be characterized as an increasing function of quantity rather than distance.

Links to spending requires large capital investmentSheehan, California Coastkeeper Alliance, 2009(Summer of Costs and Benefits of Water Supply Alternatives, online: http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/document/ccka-water-supply-strategies---costs-and-benefits.pdf)

The more recent Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) report identifies more than 30 recycling projects in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and the Inland Empire alone with the potential of yielding more than 450,000 acre-feet of water within five years.9 This report states that [w]ater recycling projects require a significant amount of initial capital because expensive treatment and distribution facilities must be constructed and winter storage is required to fully utilize available wastewater; it then estimates a cost averaging $1,000 per acre-foot to produce highly treated recycled water in Orange County.10 Recycled water treated for less sensitive uses and with lower infrastructure costs (at the Eastern Municipal Water District) averaged $350 per acre-foot, by contrast.11

EnviroBad for the environment produces wasteIrwin, Analyst for Breaking Energy, 2013(Wastewater Recylcing Part III: Costs and Challenges, online: http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/16/wastewater-recycling-part-iii-costs-and-challenges/)

It remains to be seen which technology will prove most effective, both in performance and cost terms. And despite the potential environmental benefits of recycling, some concerns remain. Environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) raised the question of disposal of toxic waste produced from the cleanup process. The recycling of fracking waste is conceptually a good thing, but were concerned about the residual waste coming out of that process that could be toxic, but is not governed under waste rules, NRDC Senior Policy Analyst Amy Mall told Breaking Energy. The waste should be managed under federal hazardous waste laws, but the industry is exempt from the federal law that governs hazardous waste.***Isreal Desal CP***1ncText: Israel should substantially increase its ocean desalination development.

This solves the case Israel is experienced and efficient at desalination.Pyper, E&E Reporter, 2014(Julia, Israel is creating a water surplus using desalination. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202)

SEDE BOQER, Israel -- In the land of milk and honey, water has always been in short supply. Researchers here have linked temperature rise and drought to migration patterns across this arid region dating back to biblical times. Now, for the first time in its history, Israel is on track to experience a water surplus. The first major desalination plant in Israel opened in the southern city of Ashkelon in 2005. Since then, four more large-scale seawater desalination plants have come online, with additional capacity in the pipeline. In the span of a decade, desalination has come to produce about 40 percent of Israel's water supply. On its current trajectory, Israel will have access to more than 600 million cubic meters of desalinated water per year by 2015, which amounts to more than half the country's total freshwater needs. Desalination has led to a resource revolution in Israel, said Shlomo Wald, chief scientist at the Ministry of Energy and Water Resources. "Now, Israel isn't always dependent on the mercy of God to give us rain," he said. Drought's stress eases For the last seven years, Israel has been in a severe drought. The country's largest freshwater resource, the Sea of Galilee, had been hovering around critical lows until the rains returned last year. By increasing Israel's desalination capacity, water managers won't have to draw on natural resources for everyday usage, allowing the region's aquifers to finally recover, said Eilon Adar, director of the Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research at Ben-Gurion University. In the 1960s, the thirst for water led Israelis to develop highly efficient drip irrigation systems. Today, Israel also treats and recycles more than 80 percent of household wastewater. Spain, which has the second-highest reclamation rate, recycles about 30 percent. These long-standing practices, combined with desalination, have helped Israel "conquer the desert," Adar said, "rather than be pushed away by the desert." Israel now has enough available water that the government has decided to curb production at four of the largest desalination plants. This year, the national water company Mekorot will buy 360 million cubic meters of desalinized seawater, just 70 percent of a total 510 million cubic meters of production capacity. Desalinated water is expensive to make, and desalination plants are extremely capital-intensive to build. So why build them if they're not going to be fully used?

Solvency

Water JusticeTexas and Nevada are already planning water export deals with Israel - reduces costsBooth, Washington Post, 10/25/13(William, Bureau chiefJerusalem, Israel knows water technology, and it wants to cash in, online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-knows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc5-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html)

Israel wants to be seen in the water world the same admiring way it is viewed in the realm of high-tech. The countrys exports of water products have tripled in the past five years and now total $2 billion, according to Israels economic ministry. Its biggest customer is the United States, but new markets are opening in countries with an emerging middle class, such as Mexico, Turkey, China and India. Because of Israels history of scarcity, isolation and resourcefulness, it has the jump in water management and conservation. The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, issued the call to make the desert bloom. Since then, Israeli leaders have periodically dangled the transfer of water technology as a possible incentive for peace with the Palestinians and Arab states. Two Republican governors from arid states, Rick Perry of Texas and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, were on hand with large delegations this week to peruse the wares at the Watec Israel 2013 exhibition. Perry hailed Israel for its reuse of wastewater Israel recycles more than 80 percent of its effluents, compared with about 1 percent in the United States, the governor said. Asked about potential deals between Israel and Texas for water technology, Perry said in an interview, Lets do it. The Texas governor was repeatedly approached by representatives of the Israeli water business who introduced themselves, delivered business cards and made their sales pitches. The reason for their interest did not escape Perry. Texas goes from drought to drought, and what we need to survive is to conserve and use wisely what water we have, Perry said. Texas residents will vote in November on a $2 billion initiative to rebuild the states water infrastructure. The hallways of the Tel Aviv convention center were packed with engineers from China, Spain, France and Australia. Buyers and sellers huddled around water coolers signing memorandums of understanding. Israel is a world leader in desalination of seawater. By next year, more than a third of Israels tap water will come from the Mediterranean Sea and a few briny wells. Israels total water consumption remains nearly at 1964 levels even though its population has quadrupled to 8 million people, according to the economic ministry. They say that necessity is the mother of invention, and that is clearly the case in Israel, said Oded Distel, director of Israel New Tech, a government agency that primes the water pump by giving grants to high-tech water start-ups and helps market the water industry abroad. If we had to rely on sources of fresh water, we wouldnt be here. In Israel, we use every drop twice.

Israel is a global leader solves modelingGreenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times, Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html)

Each of Israels plants cost between $300 million and $450 million to build. The plants are privately owned and operated, under a contract with the government, which buys the water from the plants. The budget for water purchases comes from water charges to consumers. The plants are not subsidized. Israels efforts to solve its water shortage havent ended with desalination. The country treats and recycles more than 80 percent of its wastewater, using it primarily for agriculture, making it a world leader in that field.

Israels desalination plants can help the United States.Haaretz, 2014(Haaretz, Israeli company building America's largest desalination plant in California, http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.575985)

An Israeli company is involved in building what is expected to be the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, the Orange County Register reports. When completed in 2016, the plant in Carlsbad, California will be able to provide 50 million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller plants already operate in California, and 15 more have been proposed. The $922 million plant is being developed by Israel's IDE Technologies in cooperation with local company Poseidon Resources Corp. This is the one supply that San Diego County is investing in that is truly drought-proof, said Poseidon senior VP Peter MacLaggan. "It does cost more, but it has some reliability benefits that are very important to the regional economy. Six decades of providing water in a country that's 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California. In Israel, desalination now provides about one-quarter of the country's water supply. Each of IDE's three plants in Israel provides roughly double the output anticipated from the facility in Carlsbad, MacLaggan said. Not everyone is happy with the project, due primarily to the high energy consumption and environmental impact of desalination. Katalyn Voss, a water policy fellow at the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling in Irvine, says that desalination should be considered in California only after other measures are exhausted.

Israel can make money and export water to other countries in need of water from desalination. Washington Post, 2013(WP, Israel knows water technology, and it wants to cash in, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-knows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc5-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html)

Israel wants to be seen in the water world the same admiring way it is viewed in the realm of high-tech. The countrys exports of water products have tripled in the past five years and now total $2 billion, according to Israels economic ministry. Its biggest customer is the United States, but new markets are opening in countries with an emerging middle class, such as Mexico, Turkey, China and India. Because of Israels history of scarcity, isolation and resourcefulness, it has the jump in water management and conservation. The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, issued the call to make the desert bloom. Since then, Israeli leaders have periodically dangled the transfer of water technology as a possible incentive for peace with the Palestinians and Arab states. Two Republican governors from arid states, Rick Perry of Texas and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, were on hand with large delegations this week to peruse the wares at the Watec Israel 2013 exhibition. Perry hailed Israel for its reuse of wastewater Israel recycles more than 80 percent of its effluents, compared with about 1 percent in the United States, the governor said. Asked about potential deals between Israel and Texas for water technology, Perry said in an interview, Lets do it. The Texas governor was repeatedly approached by representatives of the Israeli water business who introduced themselves, delivered business cards and made their sales pitches. The reason for their interest did not escape Perry. Texas goes from drought to drought, and what we need to survive is to conserve and use wisely what water we have, Perry said. Texas residents will vote in November on a $2 billion initiative to rebuild the states water infrastructure. The hallways of the Tel Aviv convention center were packed with engineers from China, Spain, France and Australia. Buyers and sellers huddled around water coolers signing memorandums of understanding. Israel is a world leader in desalination of seawater. By next year, more than a third of Israels tap water will come from the Mediterranean Sea and a few briny wells. Israels total water consumption remains nearly at 1964 levels even though its population has quadrupled to 8 million people, according to the economic ministry.

GeneralIsrael is the perfect incubator for water development and innovationBooth, Washington Post, 10/25/13(William, Bureau chiefJerusalem, Israel knows water technology, and it wants to cash in, online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-knows-water-technology-and-it-wants-to-cash-in/2013/10/25/7bb1dd36-3cc5-11e3-b0e7-716179a2c2c7_story.html)

Israel will soon become the largest hub for water innovation in the world, said Amir Peleg, founder and chief executive of TaKaDu, which uses algorithms to monitor municipal water companies for leaks in real time. Israels public and private sectors are investing heavily in developing and promoting the water industry. There are 280 water technology companies in Israel. Pelegs company is a subject of study at Harvard Business School. He is a product of Israels start-up nation educated in the Israeli armys elite computer intelligence unit, with degrees from Israel and France. Peleg made a fortune selling YaData, a behavioral targeting company, to Microsoft in 2008. After the sale of his software company, Peleg said he cast around for a new niche and discovered water. He said Israel has the science, the entrepreneurs, the demand and the venture capital to create the perfect incubator.

While California struggles with desalinization, Israel is already developed and excellingGreenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times, Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html)

Theres no water problem because of the desalination, said Hila Gil, director of the desalination division in the Israel Water Authority. The problem is no longer on the agenda. The struggle over scarce water resources has fueled conflict between Israel and its neighbors, but the country is now finding itself increasingly self-sufficient after years of dependency on rainfall and subterranean aquifers. Israels experience might also offer some important lessons, or at least contrast, for states like California. Now gripped by drought, with the all-important snowpack averaging only 26 percent of normal, California has struggled with desalination efforts in the past. At present, more than a dozen desalination projects are at various stages of planning in the state, and the California Department of Water Resources will be announcing a new round of desalination grants in May. The grants are very modest, though; the last round, for instance, offered just $45,000 to study the technology in southern San Luis Obispo County.Israeli plants are the most cost efficient in the worldGreenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times, Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html)

The Israeli plants, mostly located along the coast, operate at high energy efficiency and are some of the most cost-efficient in the world, when measured against similar plants in other countries, according to official figures. Desalinated water at the Soreq plant is produced at the price of 52 cents a cubic meter, according to terms of a government tender, and while actual rates fluctuate according to energy costs, currency exchange and the cost-of-living index, they remain significantly lower than in other nations.

Desalination has solved Israels water problems. Sales, Time of Israel Writer, 2013(Ben, With desalination, a once unthinkable water surplus is possible, http://www.timesofisrael.com/with-desalination-a-once-unthinkable-water-surplus-is-possible/)

Drawn from deep in the Mediterranean Sea, the water has flowed through pipelines reaching almost 4,000 feet off of Israels coast and, once in Israeli soil, buried almost 50 feet underground. Now, it rushes down a tube sending it through a series of filters and purifiers. After 90 minutes, it will be ready to run through the faucets of Tel Aviv. Set to begin operating as soon as next month, Israel Desalination Enterprises Sorek Desalination Plant will provide up to 26,000 cubic meters or nearly 7 million gallons of potable water to Israelis every hour. When its at full capacity, it will be the largest desalination plant of its kind in the world. If we didnt do this, we would be sitting at home complaining that we didnt have water, said Raphael Semiat, a member of the Israel Desalination Society and professor at Israels Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. We wont be dependent on what the rain brings us. This will give a chance for the aquifers to fill up. The new plant and several others along Israels coast are part of the countrys latest tactic in its decades-long quest to provide for the nations water needs. Advocates say desalination the removal of salt from seawater could be a game-changing solution to the challenges of Israels famously fickle rainfall. Instead of the sky, Israels thirst may be quenched by the Mediterraneans nearly infinite, albeit salty, water supply. Until the winter of 2011-12, water shortages were a dire problem for Israel; the country had experienced seven straight years of drought beginning in 2004. The Sea of Galilee (also known as Lake Kinneret), a major freshwater source and barometer of sorts for Israels water supply, fell to dangerous lows. The situation got so severe that the government ran a series of commercials featuring celebrities, their faces cracking from dryness, begging Israelis not to waste any water. Even as the Sea of Galilee has returned almost to full volume this year, Israeli planners are looking to desalination as a possible permanent solution to the problem of drought. Some even anticipate an event that was once unthinkable: a water surplus in Israel. Israel Desalination Enterprises opened the first desalination plant in the country in the southern coastal city of Ashkelon in 2005, following success with a similar plant in nearby Cyprus. With Sorek, the company will own three of Israels four plants, and 400 plants in 40 countries worldwide. The companys U.S. subsidiary is designing a new desalination plant in San Diego, the $922 million Carlsbad Desalination Project, which will be the largest desalination plant in America. In Israel, desalination provides 300 million cubic meters of water per year about 40 percent of the countrys total water needs. That number will jump to 450 million when Sorek opens, and will hit nearly 600 million as plants expand in 2014, providing up to 80 percent of Israels potable water. Like Israels other plants, Sorek will work through a process called Seawater Reverse Osmosis that removes salt and waste from the Mediterraneans water. A prefiltration cleansing process clears waste out of the flow before the water enters a series of smaller filters to remove virtually all the salt. After moving through another set of filters that remove boron, the water passes through a limestone filter that adds in minerals. Then, it enters Israels water pipes. Semiat says desalination is a virtually harmless process that can help address the water needs prompted by the worlds growing population and rising standard of living. You take water from the deep sea, from a place that doesnt bother anyone, he said. But desalination is not without its critics. Some environmentalists question whether the process is worth its monetary and environmental costs. One cubic meter of desalinated water takes just under 4 kWh to produce thats the equivalent of burning 40 100-watt light bulbs for one hour to produce the equivalent of five bathtubs full of water. Freshwater doesnt have that cost. Giora Shaham, a former long-term planner at Israels Water Authority and a critic of Israels current desalination policy, said that factories like Sorek could be a waste because if there is adequate rainfall the desalination plants will produce more water than Israel needs at a cost that is too high. Then, surplus water may be wasted, or international bodies like the United Nations could pressure Israel to distribute it for free to unfriendly neighboring countries, Shaham said. There was a long period of drought where there wasnt a lot of rain, so everyone was in panic, Shaham said. Instead of cutting back until there is rain, they made decisions to produce too much. Fredi Lokiec, an executive vice president at the Sorek plant, says the risks are greater without major desalination efforts. Israel is perennially short on rainfall, and depending on freshwater could further deplete Israels rivers. Well always be in the shadow of the drought, Lokiec said, but drawing from the Mediterranean is like taking a drop from the ocean. Some see a water surplus as an opportunity. Orit Skutelsky, water division manager at the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, says desalinated water could free up freshwater to refill Israels northern streams and raise the level of the Sea of Galilee. Theres no way we couldnt have done this, she said of desalination. It was the right move. Now we need to let water flow again to the streams.

Israel has the most advanced desalination development in the world. Jewish Virtual Library, 2013 ( JVL, Water in Israel:Water Desalination, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/agriculture/desal2011.html)

The Ashkelon facility, regarded as the most advanced desalination facility of its kind in the world, has been operational since 2005 and supplies more than 108 million of cubic meters of water - approximately 15% of domestic water consumption. The facility, which operates by means of reverse osmosis, includes several technological innovations and it supplies water of the highest quality. In December 2006, the Ashkelon plant won a special prize for "exceptional achievements" in recognition of its huge technological contribution to the technological and economic promotion of the international desalination industry during the annual convention of the Israeli Desalination Association. This prize joins the "Desalination Plant of the Year" prize the facility won during the prestigious ceremony of Global Water.

Isreal is already cooperating inernationallyUnitedWithIsrael, 2012(UWI, Israel Desalination Turning Africa Green, http://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-desalination-turning-africa-green/)

Yedioth Achronot has reported, In a world where freshwater resources are becoming increasingly limited, Israela country that is two-thirds arid-has become a leader in developing state of the art desalination technology. However, less-developed nations find that installing desalination facilities is extremely costly, as they use enormous amounts of electricity and are location sensitive. But thanks to a recent Israeli discovery, the desalination system may become more affordable in areas like Africa. Evidently, the new water-saving desalination innovation is in operation in the Arava Valley, south of the Dead Sea. According to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, The new plant relies on special nanofiltration membranes that churn out high-value irrigation water and allow the individual farmer or plant manager to decide which minerals should stay in the water and which should be removed. Normally, non-specific desalination filters remove all minerals, which must then be replenished depending on the end need. [] The special membrane enables them to save energy in the pumping, while allowing the water to retain the right essential minerals. Test runs of the system in the Dead Sea region of Israel, where the climate is dry, has shown that farmers can use up to 25 percent less water and fertilizer than what is usually needed. Andrea Ghermandi of the Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research at Ben-Gurion University, who is one of the systems creators, asserted, The growing global demand for food and competition for resources among economic sectors compel future agricultural systems to be more efficient in the use of natural resources such as land and water. Rami Messalem, who was also part of the developing team, explained that, The breakthrough here was to make the system more economical and weve done this using nanofiltration cleverly. Our system is compatible with electricity but is based on the premise that it can be used in poor countries, in places where you dont have an electricity source as a standalone system. []Reverse osmosis is based on membranes, and in this case we are using nanofilters, which [perform] loose reverse osmosis, and we will use much less energy in the process. Israels IDE pioneered reverse osmosis for desalinating water (Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Israel has already assisted many countries with desalination technology. The Jewish Press reported, Since 2011, the Israeli-built desalination plant in Tianjin is Chinas largest and most environmentally friendly desalination plant to date, running on some of the waste heat produced by a nearby power plant, producing fresh water and salt. Israels IDE Technologies has in fact built 400 desalination plants in some 40 different countries from across the globe. However, this new innovation should greatly enhance Israels desalination efforts globally. Already, Israel has signed a water agreement with the new African nation of South Sudan to assist with desalination, irrigation, water transport and purification. We see this as a privilege to be the first [sector in Israel] to sign an agreement with the new state. We will continue to do everything possible in order to assist you. You are among friends, Energy and Water Minister Uzi Landau said in a statement aimed at Akec Paul Mayom, water and irrigation minister of South Sudan. South Sudan suffers from severe water problems.

Israel has survived a terrible drought through desalination. Lev, 2014(David, Israel Faces Almost Unprecedented Water Crisis, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177551#.U7nFa_ldXVo)

Israel faces a severe crisis if urgent measures are not taken to address the country's growing water scarcity, according to experts. January passed with barely a drop of rain, and February hasn't been much better, despite last weekend's rainstorm, said Avshalom Vilan, chairman of the Israeli Agricultural Federation, a group representing farmers and agricultural families. Unless there is a climatic miracle, he said, Israel would soon be in a very serious water shortage situation. The situation is so bad, he said, that stored water that is usually released only in April to farmers in northern Israel is already being used, due to a lack of natural rainfall. Fortunately, there is something the government can do to alleviate the shortage by activating all of Israel's water desalination plants. Due to last year's good rainfall, the desalination plants are currently running only at half capacity. At full capacity, said Vilan, they could supply 150 million cubic meters of water, enough to get Israel through the current crisis. One reason the authorities prefer natural water over desalinated water is because the latter costs more to produce, but according to Vilan, Israelis will not pay directly for that water, because most of it will be used for agricultural purposes, leaving the fresh water for drinking. While farmers and food processors would probably pass on their extra costs to consumers who would end up paying the desalination costs indirectly it was still a better alternative than going thirsty. A lack of water could be very problematic for the Israeli consumer, said Vilan. We need to make decisions now. The Treasury must lead this effort. If we enact this we have an opportunity to begin to solve our water problems, he said.

Israels Desalination Plants Are safely Filtered, Making It FeasibleWater Technology, 2014(WT, Sorek Desalination Plant, Israel, http://www.water-technology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/)

The Sorek desalination located about 15km south of Tel Aviv, Israel, became operational in October 2013 with a seawater treatment capacity of 624,000m/day, which makes it world's biggest seawater desalination plant. The desalination facility uses seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) process providing water to Israel's national water carrier system. Construction of the desalination plant began in January 2011 and was completed with a total investment of about $400m. One of the most important components of the plant is the use of an SWRO desalination process. SWRO was chosen as it was the most practicable option from technical and economical points of view. Project needs, site conditions and the Finance Ministry's Inter-Ministerial Tenders Committee requirements were the other factors that worked in favour of SWRO. Major components of the facility can broadly be categorised into an intake system, onshore interconnection pipelines and a seawater pumping station. Intake system facilities include intake heads for adequate and consistent flow of feed water, as well as offshore seawater supply and brine outfall pipelines. Feed water for the process is taken from two open sea intake heads located around 1.15km offshore. The suction heads are provided with a slow suction velocity of 0.15m/s so the effects of entrainment and impingement of marine organisms can be kept minimal. Corrosion of intake structures is prevented by installing an automatic active cathodic protection system. The two underground intake and one brine pipelines were installed by using the pipe jacking method. The brine outfall pipeline was laid up to a depth of 20m, approximately 1.85km from shore. The pipe jacking method was also applied to install the majority of the onshore pipelines. Two feed pipelines made of concrete were laid from the onshore chamber to the intake pumping station, located 2.4km from the sea shore. The seawater pumping station includes an intake pit, oil monitors, vertical pumps and travelling screens with self-cleansing system. Electricity for the operation of the facility is provided by an independent power producer (IPP),which was built on site by Delek Infrastructure. Chemical dosing and a flocculation basin are used for the pre-filtration process. The chemical dosing station consists of two pumps, each supplied with a frequency converter device. This device keeps the pumps' revolutions each minute (RPM) and flow rate in alignment with the plant's real-time needs. The flocculation basin facilitates the process to separate suspended solids. Remaining impurities are removed through dual media gravity filtration. The filtered seawater is then pumped by the low pressure feed booster pumps to the reverse osmosis section for desalination. Post-treatment involves re-mineralisation of the desalinated water followed by final disinfection. Sorek desalination project is a part of the desalination master plan launched by the Water Desalination Administration (WDA), an Israeli Governmental agency, in 2000. The plan envisages the production of approximately 650 million cubic meters per annum by the year 2020, by building large-scale seawater plants along the coast of the Mediterranean. The agency has already built Ashkelon, Palmahim and Hadera plants which have a combined production capacity of approximately 290 million cubic meters a year. The new plant caters for 10% of the country's drinking water consumption and about 20% of its domestic water consumption.Water WarsSolves water conflict- Israel will exportReuters, 12/6/11(Desalination plant could make Israel water exporter, online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-israel-desalination-idUSTRE7B50V520111206)

(Reuters) - Israel's national water company signed a financing agreement to build a desalination plant, which officials said could allow drought-ridden Israel to export water to its neighbors upon completion in 2013. Israel's ADL, a subsidiary of state-owned Mekorot, will build and operate the plant in the coastal city of Ashdod for 25 years, supplying 100 million cubic metres of desalinated water annually, the Finance Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday. Israel is two-thirds arid and to avoid further depleting its fresh water sources it has become a world leader in desalination and wastewater recycling. The new Ashdod plant will join four other desalination facilities that to provide, by the end of 2013, 85 percent of the country's household water consumption. "In the coming years we will be able to return water to nature and even sell water to our neighbors," said Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. ADL secured funding for the project from Israel's Bank Hapoalim and the European Investment Bank (EIB), the statement said.

Israels water supply solves Middle Eastern hotspot Greenberg, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 3/20/14(Joel, Journalist on the topic of Israel, previously published in the New York Times, Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html)

In peace negotiations with the Palestinians, desalination could allow for more equitable sharing of natural water resources in the West Bank, now largely controlled by Israel, according to Bromberg. Increasing the pie through desalination allows the natural water to be shared at low political cost for Israel and at a high political gain for Abu Mazen, he said, using the nickname of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Allowing more water to flow in every Palestinian tap has immediate impact on the quality of life of all Palestinians. This is relevant to the (peace) efforts of Secretary of State (John) Kerry. We can move forward rapidly on water.Desalination Can Make Peace in the Middle EastMilstein, National Geographic, 2008(Mati, National Geographic Reporter, Desalination No "Silver Bullet" in Mideast, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080522-middle-east.html)

Hillel Shuval, a veteran expert on the Middle East water conflict at Jerusalem's Hadassah Academic College, sees desalination as providing a window of opportunity. "Desalination makes peace much more possible for the Israelis," Shuval said. "Because of desalination, I don't think the next Middle East war will be over water," added Tal. Improvements to the desalination option might include the use of concentrated solar power in place of fossil fuels. But both Israelis and Palestinians at the conference in Amman agreed that desalination and its potential effects are still largely unexplored and should be just part of a diversified long-term response to the water crisis.

Israel is selling desalination water to its neighbors. Kershner, NYT, 2013(Isabel, A Rare Middle East Agreement, on Water, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-jordan-and-palestinians-sign-water-project-deal.html?_r=0)

JERUSALEM In a rare display of regional cooperation, representatives of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement on Monday to build a Red Sea-Dead Sea water project that is meant to benefit all three parties. The project addresses two problems: the acute shortage of clean fresh water in the region, especially in Jordan, and the rapid contraction of the Dead Sea. A new desalination plant is to be built in Aqaba, Jordan, to convert salt water from the Red Sea into fresh water for use in southern Israel and southern Jordan each would get eight billion to 13 billion gallons a year. The process produces about the same amount of brine as a waste product; the brine would be piped more than 100 miles to help replenish the already very saline Dead Sea. Under the agreement, Israel will also provide Amman, the Jordanian capital, with eight billion to 13 billion gallons of fresh water from the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, and the Palestinians expect to be able to buy up to eight billion gallons of additional fresh water from Israel at preferential prices. The agreement was signed at the Washington headquarters of the World Bank, a sponsor of the project. The water level in the Dead Sea, an ancient salt lake whose shores are the lowest dry places on the earths surface, has been dropping by more than three feet a year, mainly because most of the water in the Jordan River, its main feeder, has been diverted by Israel, Jordan or Syria for domestic use and irrigation; very little now reaches the lake. Potash industries on either side of the lake have also had a detrimental impact. About 25 miles of the Dead Seas shoreline lie in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and are claimed by the Palestinians as part of a future state. Israeli officials said that proposals would soon be solicited internationally from private companies to build and operate a desalination plant in Aqaba, which is meant to operate on a commercial basis, selling the potable water to Jordan and Israel. A brine pipeline to the Dead Sea, estimated to cost at least $240 million, would be financed by donor countries and organizations, with the World Bank providing a bridge loan. The brine pipeline will run through Jordanian territory, because the planning process in Jordan is quicker and less liable to be slowed by the objections of environmentalists and other opponents, according to Israeli officials. They said that the added brines effects on the Dead Sea would be carefully monitored. The project has been discussed and studied in various forms for 20 years. Speaking on Israeli Army Radio on Monday, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli cabinet minister responsible for water projects and for regional cooperation, called the agreement historic. But critics said it was far less ambitious than an earlier proposal for a canal that would also exploit the altitude difference between the Red and Dead Seas to generate hydroelectricity. Regional tensions also manifested themselves. Shaddad Attili, the head of the Palestinian Water Authority, said the agreement was essentially one between Israel and Jordan, with the Palestinian Authority involved because it shares part of the Dead Sea coastline. We gave our support to Jordan, he said.Speaking by telephone from the United States before the signing ceremony, Mr. Attili said the brine from the plant would have to be taken north to the Dead Sea because draining it back into the Red Sea would upset Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Mr. Attili signed the agreement in Washington on behalf of the authority; Mr. Shalom signed for Israel; and Hazim el-Naser, the Jordanian minister for water and irrigation, signed for Jordan.

US Deslination BadCorruptionUS desalination cant solve water justice corporate abuseFood and Water Watch, 2009(Food and Water watch, Ocean Desalination invites Corporate Control and Abuse of Our Water supply, http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Desal-Feb2009.pdf)

So with all of these drawbacks, why are we even considering ocean desalination? Many desalination projects are built and owned by private companies that see a huge opportunity to profit. For example, United Water New York is attempting to gain support for a brackish desalination plant along the Hudson River. Inima USA is building the first major desalination plant in the northeast, which will treat brackish river water for Brockton, Massachusetts. Poseidon Resources wants to build the largest seawater desalination plant in the western hemisphere in California. These plants can sell their desalinated water to public systems. Unfortunately, this is a dangerous arrangement for a vital good such as drinking water because private corporations often put their bottom line before the public interest. First, private control of desalination facilities means that local governments that purchase the water lose control over the pricing and the quantity of water available. For example, Inima USAs new $60 million desalination plant commissioned by Brockton is actually owned by Inima, which is a division of another company, Spain-based, OHL. Regardless of whether the town receives any water, Brockton will pay a fixed fee of $3.2 million per year for the first three years, which will increase annually thereafter. On top of that, the town will pay a fee for the actual water, depending on how much it receives. This arrangement will likely leave the town little control over the price of water. Also, private control of water makes it difficult to ensure public safety. Public water systems mandate transparent, accountable management, while private companies consider management issues to be proprietary business information. Thus, private companies are less likely to publicize the health or environmental impacts of their plants. The difference between public and private entities conducting research on desalination can be seen clearly in comparing the proposal submitted by the Long Beach Water Department with that of Poseidon resources, a private company. The LBWD thoroughly researched the energy and environmental impacts of its project and posted the results on its Web site, while Poseidon Resources, if it conducted such reviews, did not make them public.

Ocean desalination will cause social and environmental injustice in the United States. Food and Water Watch, 2009(Food and Water watch, Ocean Desalination Promotes Social and Environmental Injustice, http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Desal-Feb2009.pdf)

Unfortunately, the costs of desalination get passed down to the consumer. For example, the California American Water Company demanded an up-front rate increase to construct its proposed plant in Monterey, California, before it ever produced a drop of water. Across the country, in Brockton, Massachusetts, ratepayers expected to see an estimated 30 percent hike in their water rates once the city started buying desalinated river water. In 2008, the city council voted for a 60 percent increase in rates before the plant even came online. Such price hikes are not just a problem for individuals, but also for society. Water is a basic human need that must be available to all citizens, and most communities cannot afford to pay exorbitant prices for the desalted water. This means that ocean desalination contributes to social injustice, because the costs of rate hikes fall disproportionately on low-income communities. To add insult to injury, the people in these communities tend to be the same people who would be most likely to experience the negative effect from the plants. In California, for example, most proposed desalination plants would serve affluent communities in Marin County, the Monterey area, Cambria, southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. However, most of the proposed plants will be built in industrial area, which tend to house low income communities. These populations will experience the increased air pollution, noise, and traffic that come from the plants. Meanwhile, low-income coastal communities that rely on subsistence fishing may be exposed to high levels of toxins in fish that are exposed to desalination waste products.

U.S. uses water management to exploit other countriesRosenfeld, Reuters, 4/27/2011(David, California Turns to Mexico for Cheap Water, Little Regulation, online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/idUS147080317920110427)

Water agencies representing southern California, Arizona and Nevada are in discussions with the Mexican government about sharing a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach, just south of San Diego. But it's the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that are the most serious, based on interviews with officials. Construction could begin in as little as two years on a plant producing up to 75 million gallons of fresh water daily. That is more than 50 percent larger than the biggest facility currently planned for California - within San Diego County in Carlsbad - which has been delayed by lawsuits and permitting for more than a decade. Up to half of the water produced in Rosarito is expected to stay in Mexico to meet local demand. But the rest would be pumped north of the border to American households, said Halla Razak of the San Diego County Water Authority. "We were happy to find out that we should continue looking into this, that no fatal flaws were found," Razak said. Meanwhile, San Diego water officials are also working out an agreement with Poseidon Resources to buy desalinated water from its proposed Carlsbad facility. Building a plant in Mexico could produce water faster with arguably less oversight and fewer costs for a region facing droughts on the Colorado River. Opponents see it as another attempt to take advantage of Mexico for American interests. "It's absolutely unethical for U.S. water agencies to finance coastal developments in Mexico to serve the insatiable water needs of southern California," said Serge Dedina, Ph.D. executive director of the conservation group, Wildcoast, that focuses on Baja and southern California. "The coast of Baja should not be used for American infrastructure projects." Dedina said the plan mirrors those by other corporations to exploit Mexico's lower costs and weaker reg