We've known this for years. The problem is that for a return on a desalinization program you have to wait longer than one political cycle, so there isn't enough political will to get it done.
It's a shame because with the access to seawater and sun, it would be a perfect combination to desalinate with green energy.
Yep, total linkbait title and article. Californians have known scientific solutions for a long time, it's that people don't care enough to act. Convincing a huge population of people to change their lifestyle is far more difficult than solving a scientific dilemma. That's why a water surplus is not around the corner.
Agreed linkbait, but I would have to say that people do care enough to act. To pretend that a huge population doesn't give a shit about water usage is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I agree that California is not the model of water preservation considering the climate and water available to the geography. When statistics point to the fact that only a fraction of the water used in California occurs from lifestyle behavior, stating that the issue is lifestyle changes is failing to take into account any other information than pure speculation. The numbers regarding agricultural usage vary, but in most cases the amount used by things other than directly attributable to people is far less when compared to agriculture or any other source of usage[1].
The lifestyle changes that would need to occur to stem California's water usage are far more extensive and could easily qualify as a scientific dilemma. Basically non-california citizens are the "problem". When you're talking about drastically altering the diet of the entire U.S. (most likely other nations as well) due to the water being consumed by Agriculture it is absolutely a scientific dilemma.
> Convincing a huge population of people to change their lifestyle is far more difficult than solving a scientific dilemma.
But the only plan they have currently is basically just trying to get a huge population of people to change their lifestyle: let your lawn die, take shorter showers, don't wash your car. Most (if not all) of the "conserve water" suggestions involve convincing people to change their lifestyle. Why are they picking the more difficult solution?
The problem isn't political, it's economic. Water shipped to farmers is sold at very low cost compared to the cost of desalinated water.
As far as I know, which isn't much, the only desal plants in California[1][2] are those which sell to urban areas for whom the cost is not a dealbreaker.
Commercial desal isn't as easy as all that. We have one here where I live in the Tampa bay area. Its a good thing and all, but it was a nightmare, involving too many lawsuits and finger-pointing to get it working effectively. And its expensive water, so it rarely runs at capacity.
All of these solutions are more expensive than free water that falls from the sky. If the drought ends, then you have an expensive white elephant on your hands.
If the drought conditions are the new normal, though, we'll wish that we started yesterday.
