|
<br />WATER RESOURCES
<br />
<br />Alaska/California/Water Transfers
<br />
<br />The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has
<br />just published a paper entitled 'Alaskan Water for
<br />California? The Subsea Pipeline Option.'
<br />Congressman Edward Roybal (D-CA), George Brown
<br />(D-CA) and Don Young (R-AK) asked OTA to make a
<br />brief investigation of transferring water by means of
<br />a subsea pipeline as proposed by Governor Walter
<br />Hickel of Alaska - in response to concerns expressed
<br />by Californians about the future adequacy of their
<br />water supplies in light of the extended drought.
<br />
<br />Last year, OTA held a workshop in Los Angeles
<br />with representatives from the California Department of
<br />Water.. Resources (DWR), Metropolitan Water District
<br />of Southern California (MWD), Los Angeles County
<br />Department of Public Works, Western States Water
<br />Council, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of
<br />Engineers, and Santa Anna Watershed Project
<br />Authority. Experts from major engineering firms,
<br />environmental groups and academia also participated.
<br />Governor Hickel was a key speaker. OTA observed
<br />that few doubt that California water planners have a
<br />big task in assuring that the state has sufficient water
<br />to meet future demands, but the unambiguous
<br />message from worksh~p participants and other
<br />experts polled by OTA is that California 'does not
<br />currently need the large volumes of imported water
<br />that wouid justify a major interbasin transfer.....
<br />
<br />OTA concludes that "building an underwater
<br />pipeline from Alaska to California would be one of the
<br />most complex and costly engineering projects ever
<br />attempted, rivaling (or surpassing) in scope the
<br />building of the Panama Canal, the trans-Alaska
<br />pipeline, or the Channel Tunnel (between England
<br />and France). Before deciding to build such a
<br />pipertrie, ,OTAsays that a number of considerations,
<br />in addition to engineering feasibility and cost, would
<br />have to be thoroughly studied.
<br />
<br />These other considerations would include: (1) the
<br />future need for water in California; (2) how much
<br />Alaskan water would be available, and the willingness
<br />of Alaskans to export it; (3) different alternatives for
<br />supplying additional water to California and their cost;
<br />(4) alternatives for reducing the demand for water and
<br />for more efficient management of existing supplies;
<br />
<br />(5) environmental impacts associated with removing
<br />water from Alaska, including possibly the impact of .
<br />the accelerated growth that the increased supply of
<br />water to southern California could stimulate; (6)
<br />legal/political/institutional issues; (7) financing options;
<br />and (8) other long-range policies related to
<br />California's water needs and growth problems.
<br />
<br />The report takes a brief look at some of these
<br />issues. It concludes California has other available
<br />water supply options that are sufficient to meet water
<br />demands in the years ahead, including wastewater
<br />reclamation, water banking and desalination. Further,
<br />a variety of opportunities are available to reduce
<br />demand through urban and agricultural water
<br />conservation. The possibility of reallocating some
<br />supplies from agriculture to the urban sector, through
<br />the creation of water markets and/or other means
<br />also appears adequate to meet California's water
<br />demands for the foreseeable future. Moreover, OTA
<br />concludes, 'Despite the large uncertainties about the
<br />cost of water from Alaska, there is no doubt that
<br />many of the other options available will be much less
<br />expensive than the subsea pipeline option.'
<br />
<br />Nevertheless, the report states, 'Although there is
<br />no current or near term demand for expensive water
<br />from Alaska, the possibility that such water might .
<br />eventually be needed cannot be completely
<br />dismissed. No one who participated in OTA's
<br />workshop claimed to know what California's water
<br />demands might be 50 years or more from now, nor
<br />the relative costs of the options available at that time
<br />for meeting those demands. Clearly, as demand
<br />increases and as less expensive options are
<br />implemented, the more expensive ones become
<br />relatively more attractive.' OTA notes the potential
<br />effects of increasing global temperatures, leading to
<br />longer and more frequent droughts in the Southwest,
<br />and concludes that 'at some point, then, such
<br />schemes [interbasin transfers] could again receive
<br />serious attention.'
<br />
<br />MEETINGS
<br />
<br />The Western Legislative Conference's Water Policy
<br />Committee will meet on May 15-16, in Seattle,
<br />Washington.
<br />
<br />The Western Governors' Association's Annual
<br />Meeting will be June 21-23 in Jackson, Wyoming.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors
<br />of member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
<br />Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, wRh Oklahoma as an associate member
<br />state.
<br />
|