Someone should tell them that desalination would slow the rising sea levels or something.
Desalination requires energy. LEFTISTS HATE ENERGY. Therfore, it’s not an option.
Here’s the problem; what happens to those private businesses in years when there is no drought? If there’s plenty of cheaper water, they will go bankrupt. Or the government will have to subsidize them. In someplace that never has plentiful water they can count on a steady demand, but most years in CA are not drought years, unlike the middle east which is always dry.
Israel has gone through one of the driest winters in its history, but despite the lean rainy season, the government has suspended a longstanding campaign to conserve water..
The problem the Times has with desalination Is explained in the last 10 words of that paragraph
It doesn’t occur to the left one way to reduce water consumption is to eliminate illegal immigration and return illegals to their home countries. Halting illegal immigration and returning sending the illegals home would also reduce energy consumption.
Perhaps the person who currently holds the office of POTUS could start to set an example by ending his frequent flights to the west coast where he holds a fundraiser and then spends a weekend playing golf at exclusive desert courses, accessible only to the upper 2% he hates so much. These course require millions of gallons of water to sustain and Air Force One consumes thousands of gallons of fossil fuel. Somehow the editors at the NY Times never seem to point out the hypocrisy.
“New York Times is still pretending”
Not much has changed in the last 50+ years.
maybe people in CA could get enough water if the millions of illegals were sent back to their home/
The UAE and desalinization: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2013/04/dubai-opens-uaes-largest-desalination-plant.html
In other words, entire ME countries get desalinized water.
Drought is exploitable.
Dan from squirrel blog is also far, far away from reality.
The EPA has been blocking desalination plants since the 1980s.
Sorry Dan. As much as you wish to make it so, the Environmental Protection Agency is part of the federal government. Not the California state government.
Congratulations on taking up the issue though (however belatedly).
I don’t know if the current EPA rules allow desal.
All that concentrated brine has to go somewhere, and the rules are it can’t go back to the source water (you can only discharge cleaner water than you take in).
That is the issue.
Santa Barbara built a desalination plant in 1991, then the rains hit, and they mothballed it in 1992, now they are reopening it and Carlsbad is building the largest desalination plant in the Western hemisphere.
In 2011 the United States, along with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Spain was among the top 4 markets for desalinated water, it isn’t like we don’t know about it, or won’t incorporate it as the market dictates.
“Despite these hurdles, however, the United States ranks fourth among markets for desalinated water behind Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Spain, according to an International Desalination Association presentation from 2011.”
http://www.bna.com/us-desalination-industry-n17179876105/
More freshwater means more people moving in, more construction, more government, more socialism. Democrat voters become the majority when the local population density reaches 800 people per square mile. CA has an overpopulation problem, not a water problem.
How will the desalination plants support themselves in a year or so when the drought is broken and there is available water?