|
|
|
|
|
|
by bradford
885 days ago
|
|
|
NYT daily had a relevant podcast episode on this (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/podcasts/the-daily/water-...?). Discussion centered around using the water for Arizona, not California. (I'm unable to speak of the relative merits of pumping the water from one state to another). General takeaways: Proponents of the solution seemed to understate challenges and risks associated with: 1. The pipeline itself (i.e., where to build it)
2. The disposal of brine solution into the Gulf of California.
3. Cooperation with Mexico. That's not to say the challenges couldn't be addressed, but discussion of such challenges is noticeably absent from the original article. |
|
|
Yeah this seems like a big challenge. Even if the Gulf of California is closer, or if it's all downhill, the requirement for international cooperation seems like it would make this a much more complex option than just using the Pacific. Plus if I were Mexico, I'd honestly be looking at the Salton Sea disaster, noticing that some new plan calls for putting salt down in my neighborhood instead of off the LA or San Diego coast.. sounds sketchy.
Meanwhile, the Arizona version of this plan is understandable.. Phoenix is thirsty, they have no coast, it's shorter to get to one in Mexico than California and anyway they might actually have better luck dealing with Mexico than California. But can anyone explain briefly why California would want or need the plan to involve Mexico?