[ewin]

When I travel, I often find 1 liter bottles of Fiji Water in the coolers at convience stores. These bottles typically sell for $1.50 or so.

see: http://www.fijiwater.com/site/index.html

You can have as much water from Fiji as you are willing to pay for. Further, you can go on Federal Express' web site and look up what it costs to ship 1 liter of bottled water to just about anywhere in the world. The most remote village in the Middle East that Fedex delivers to costs about $75 for next day air freight.

For less than $80, you can put a liter of bottled water from Fiji in the hands of water starved Middle Eastern citizens, the very next day.

There is no shortage of water, just a shortage of water they can afford.

My domestic water costs about 1/2 cent per gallon. The Israelies are desanlinizingsea water for less than that. One of their new plants (Ashkelon) is projected to produce potable water for a cost of 0.50 US$/cubic meter. That is amazingly inexpensive.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:0J4AsbCezSAJ:www.pwcglobal.com/uk/eng/about/svcs/pfp/Case%2520Study%2520Ashkelon.doc+Israel+desalination+sea+water+cost++contract&hl=en

The question is not that there is a "shortage" of the stuff the oceans are still full of, it is why most people around this world have been kept in such poverty by their governments they cannot afford to buy what should be the least expensive and most readily available of life's necessities.

[solitas]

So, then, the point raises itself: desalinization being so cheap and demand being so great, is it more efficient to desalinate at the coast (one big plant) and pipe it in-country (inviting tapping and theft from the pipe along the way), OR piping-in seawater and having multiple 'point-of-use' plants where they are needed (hopefully they're not stupid-enough to drink raw seawater)?

I vote the latter. Discuss.