Do folks here understand the expense and energy use associated with desalination plants?

[MADem]

151. But why not?

Why can't they do both? California isn't going to remain the seventh largest economy in the world without the agribusiness end of things, that's just the bottom line, here. And tourists (a substantial sector of the economy) don't like to be told to take short showers and "If it's yellow, let it mellow." They want to hop in their Jacuzzi tubs and luxuriate. Industries--even light industries--need water to operate.

Conservation is fine, but my understanding is that California is at the point where they have to worry about essential sufficiency. That kind of threat isn't conducive to growing--or even keeping--businesses in the state.

If the drought is as serious as some of the articles and charts I've seen here, conservation alone just isn't going to cut it. You need rain and lots of it, or another method --like desalinization-- of filling the gap.

Isn't gray water already a feature in conservation schemes in CA? Certainly, they can keep on with that, but it's not the be-all or end-all solution.

I think the desalinization option--using wind/wave/solar energy sources--should be explored, and if there's a way they can make it work in an effective and not-too-costly way, like Israel and other countries are doing, they should give it a go. If the power needed to run the thing is from sustainable sources, why not?