<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Bank Corner &#187; DEC Region 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://BankCorner.net/tag/dec-region-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://BankCorner.net</link>
	<description>Haverstraw New York</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:48:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Desalination in North Rockland: Redux</title>
		<link>http://BankCorner.net/2008/06/25/desalinization-in-north-rockland-redux/</link>
		<comments>http://BankCorner.net/2008/06/25/desalinization-in-north-rockland-redux/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Desalination News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramblings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ambrey Pond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEC Region 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Desalinization in North Rockland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Consumption Desalination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S.P.A.C.E.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Sierra Club]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://BankCorner.net/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The times they are changing, and that includes where we get our water from. If you were to believe United Water Company, read the proposals and think about it, your probably convinced as I am that a new desal plant located on the Hudson River can supply Rockland with a safe and secure supply of drinking water [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" style="vertical-align: middle;" src="http://www.bankcorner.net/images/desal.jpg" alt="Desal Protest" width="400" height="265" /></p>
<p>The times they are changing, and that includes where we get our water from. If you were to believe United Water Company, read the proposals and think about it, your probably convinced as I am that a new desal plant located on the Hudson River can supply Rockland with a safe and secure supply of drinking water for the <a title="CSM" href="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/water-rich-new-england-builds-a-desalination-plant/" target="_blank">future</a> . Ambrey&#8217;s Pond, United Water&#8217;s property in Stony Point, isn&#8217;t really feasible anymore and who wants a billion gallons of water up hill from them any way?  United also has a gun to their heads in the guise of a <a title="Rate Case" href="http://www.unitedwater.com/uwny/pdfs/WaterSupplyProject.pdf" target="_blank">Rate Case </a>. They can comply, if they choose, without building a desal plant, but the pressure is on to provide us in Rockland with at least a steady water supply, without facing shortages while complying with all the other regulations currently on the books for Lake Deforest. Either way, if United can site the plant in North Rockland it will solve at least the basic supply problem, it will settle the rate case, and allow future development in the County without thought to water supply.</p>
<p>This whole story has yet to be told. Below are some links to the issue. With the cost of energy now twice the price it was last year, will the fuel costs associated with desalination make the <a title="Energy Needs" href="http://www.desware.net/desa4.aspx" target="_blank">numbers go upside down</a> ?  The water produced by desalination still costs at least <a title="Enviornmental Science and Tech online" href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/may/tech/pp_desalination.html" target="_blank">$2 per 1000 gallons</a> , more than twice the cost of conventional water treatment. A large part of this cost comes from energy use, and this rate doesn&#8217;t take into account the large increase in the cost of energy over the last 6 months. Who said the <a title="Hearing" href="http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807150382" target="_blank">environmentalists</a> would roll over on this? And what about the <a title="Businessweek" href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2008/pi20080520_622344.htm" target="_blank">waste these plants generate</a> ? You know the media loves to write stories about <a title="Reading the River" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/nyregion/24hudson.html?ex=1374724800&amp;en=f804006780fa00fa&amp;ei=5124&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink">shit</a> , but yet they never asked what happens to Ambrey Pond in the end. There&#8217;s no doubt as it stands the Town of Stony Point has strict zoning for that property, but if United Water invests $60 M + on new technology down by the river, methinks the Courts may see things differently. Especially if United had shown good faith. Either way, that would be an epic battle for the Town of Stony Point.</p>
<p>The S.P.A.C.E. group. They deserve their own billboard on issues such as this. Even the testing building would have been a <a title="NYT" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/nyregion/30water.html" target="_self">wonderful ratable </a>.</p>
<p>Mr. Potanovic and the Sierra Club.</p>
<p><a title="Sierra Club" href="http://groups.google.com/group/sierrarc/browse_thread/thread/55ce01d2f2702e91?fwc=1" target="_blank">Do you want to drink Hudson River water?</a> from the</p>
<p><a title="Terra Firma" href="http://newyork.sierraclub.org/lhg/terrafirma/2008/july-aug-sept.08.pdf" target="_blank">TerraFirma Newsletter</a></p>
<p>The <a title="D.E.C." href="http://nature.lohudblogs.com/2008/05/22/rocklands-water-supply-lures-crowd/" target="_blank">D.E.C.</a> region 3 meeting in Suffern.</p>
<p>I still have to stick to my original point. Desalination is a great idea, but when these things involve the Hudson River, a whole different group of environmentalists take the stage. Not only that, I am quite sure the price of energy, the transport of waste from the plant, and the community opposition will change things. That doesn&#8217;t bode well for a quick resolution to our water problem, and maybe United Water knows that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://BankCorner.net/2008/06/25/desalinization-in-north-rockland-redux/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
