[ziyadb]

Just to add my 2 cents.

I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers).

Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_...

So yes, it's feasible, and just FYI, it is provided free of cost.

[ugh123]

I don't know what you mean by "feasible". Saudi Arabia neither has the population (28mil vs 38mil) of California nor the Farming needs (I don't have numbers on Saudi farms but i'll guess its somewhere near zero).

There are a number of desalination plants along the coast of California and a few more scheduled to be built. However they're very expensive to build and to operate and their yield isn't where it should be.

Supplying 50% of Cali's water via desalination is not at all feasible

[Someone1234]

Great point.

When people talk about California's water problems they make it sound as if there isn't an easy solution, but there is. The real core of this entire issue is not the methods but more the cost, it is ultimately a conversation about saving money NOT about some finite limitation on water in real terms.

California could solve this issue with a pen stroke, it just might hurt their farmers, which is really what all the concern is about. If water doubled or more in price (which is realistic), that is expensive for farmers who need a ton of the stuff for their crops. So will supermarkets pay 30% more or will they look abroad?

I actually think even with a higher water bill, it will still be cheaper for US retailers to buy US produce. Shipping that stuff by ocean isn't exactly cheap with the price of oil. I think where it would hurt US farms is their exports to Europe in particular, Europe is in a geographical position to buy from either the east or west, both by ocean. So if US/California crops go up in cost they might just buy them from someone else.

But let us not pretend that either shipping water in from other states OR just distilling water isn't an option for California, because it is. It just might hurt farmers and make them less internationally competitive.

[BashiBazouk]

This is part of what is needed. Water rights in California are as old as the state and extremely convoluted. Those with the older water rights have a practically guaranteed supply and generally irrigate in remarkably wasteful ways. Breaking the old water rights and increasing the price of water would push farmers to move to Israeli style computer controlled drip irrigation rather than current methods of just spraying tons of water over the field. Gov Brown was talking about bring that technology over and pushing it hard into farming...

[brianwawok]

Feasible for human drinking but I assume not farming (citation required). Which goes along with the story of "People in cali are not going to die of thirst, but a lot of farmers might go bankrupt"

[gdulli]

They'll have enough salt to last forever!

[driverdan]

> So yes, it's feasible, and just FYI, it is provided free of cost.

Nothing is free of cost.