I expect desalinization is farther out than the Columbia River pipeline. For a couple decades now Kalifornia has drooled over the prospect of running a 24 foot diameter pipeline from the mouth of the Columbia, down the coast range, to the central valley. Taken from near the mouth , the Columbia would never miss it, moving the sea water about 6 inches farther inland. If it helps keep Kalifornians in California I’m all for it. They’ve been quiet about the idea for a few years but this dry time might very well fire up the conversation again and it seems like the kind of “shovel ready” job the Kenyan would love? And as with Patton crossing the Rhine it would give me new enthusiasm for piddling in the river.
The irrigation canals from Grand Coulee Dam have been a huge economic blessing and like you said, the river does not miss the small amount of water that is diverted.
A pipeline from the Columbia makes too much sense. There are lots of major infrastructure projects that would greatly benefit our nation, but the threat of litigation and special interests make them nothing more than pipe dreams. Pun intended.
Desalinization plants with pipelines on the coast of California would be more than adequate and cost-effective if we removed the obstacles. All that is required is cheap electricity that could be provided by new nuclear technology and a willingness to allow it all to happen.
If California could provide it’s own affordable electricity it would also lower the electricity costs of it’s neighbors benefitting the region.
The irony is that one of the main arguments against water development is protecting plant and animal life when they would flourish just as much as we would. The animal/plant life in the Columbia Basin greatly benefits from the irrigation projects.