Any look at my website will show the most casual observer that I am a photographer who spends a great deal of effort in images of water. As a southern California resident, my subject matter is daily disappearing in the seemingly endless drought.
We talk about our water problems constantly. That is as it ought to be. NOW, we are even trying to do something about it in the sense of conservation. That is also a good, if long overdue thing. We still, however, spend almost no time on the issue of new water supplies.
While we try to conserve, we let companies like Nestle pump our aquifers dry without a thought of how we are going to replace the water that greedy interests sell off. The Governor proclaims a water emergency ,and any look at our lakes and streams and "snow pack", confirms that. We have two desalination plants under construction, one will be on line soon. And yet, neither comes close to dealing with the vast emergency just over the horizon.
We have a hugely populous and productive state. Our agriculture feeds half the nation, but when the water supply fails, what will happen to all of us dependent on water, food and income.
We can build hundreds of pipelines to bring gas and oil across country. Why not water? We have an endless supply in Alaskan rivers as they enter into the sea. In 1991 Govorner Hickle of Alaska proposed such a pipeline, which had it been done, would have relieved the drought and the fear of it. The cost then would have been $115B, a very substantial price. But compare that with the cost of this drought. An underwater pipeline today would be hugely expenses, but it likely would preserve our economy and our way of life. How about thinking boldly. Or is it really biold to seriously consider where the water will come from>