The authors are a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, few have ever heard of, known as the Food & Water Watch. It turns out this is a Ralph Nader-spinoff funded specifically to preach the virtues of conservation as the sole means of ensuring water supply and has targeted places such as Marin which are flirting with desalination.

The problem is not merely the disinformation, misconceptions and inadequate cost/benefits analysis, but its ability to fuel the flames of those who have almost a visceral reaction at the mere mention of the word desalination.

Hopefully it is but a momentary distraction for a water board sometimes swept under by the currents of questionable public opposition.

Let's try to dispose of several of the report's very radical solutions: It is suggested that landscape watering be scaled back 40 percent.

The district has already set an ambitious goal to curtail overall water use by an additional 10 percent to 15 percent - and this in a county which has adopted very aggressive conservation measures over many years.

What the report fails to point out are the costs of achieving such self-imposed rationing through recommended rain water catchments and more cisterns, which on a dollars-per-gallon basis would be three times the cost of desalination, according to district General Manager, Paul Helliker.

If conservation were the only means used to reduce our water deficit by just 50 percent it would require an expenditure of $45 million by the district and $75 million by customers, says Helliker.

And this presumes replacement of 80 percent of older toilets with the more efficient low-flow variety.

As of now, says Helliker, we are expending $10.50 per customer in pushing conservation-far more than our closest competitor.

Even with the best intentions, history has shown that conservation by itself is a little like extreme dieting.

It works for awhile and then old habits return if not brought back under control.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that the most stringent conservation measures over prolonged periods would be sufficient in and of themselves to meet the county's ongoing water needs as the report implies.

It is much more likely that in periods of severe drought mandatory water rationing would be required, as it was in 1976 and 1977, and when that occurs, there would be no reliable back-up water supply, which desalination offers.

The county's anti-growth philosophy long ago created an environmental paradise that is the envy of the nation. But this also resulted in the construction of under-sized reservoirs with capacities that are insufficient even during periods of the highest rain fall and whose expansion, also touted by the report, is a non-starter.

A further distortion is the report's citing of 2005 and 2006 as baselines for water demand-wet years of very low use.

Helliker labels them "anomalies."

Sounds like this report may have some conversational value, but not much more.