We need more water than rain can provide: refilling rivers with desalination


We believe that water should be unconditionally abundant. In the face of extended droughts, aspiring for greater usage efficiency is not, by itself, a sufficiently robust solution. The Colorado River, which supports $1.4t/year of US GDP, has seen annual flows steadily decline lower than water extraction rights, with no end in sight. The Colorado River is not an outlier, it is a harbinger. The Mississippi, among dozens of other economically vital rivers worldwide, is also facing record low water. Climate change is changing rainfall patterns and melting glaciers, it is not going away, and it will continue to threaten water security.

Recently announced federal policy, including the Inflation Reduction Act, cuts water allocations to the beneficiaries of the lower Colorado and even offers up to $400/acre-foot for usage reductions, but this will not be enough. $400/acre-foot is not enough money to compensate for lost economic activity and income, and yet $400/acre-foot would be ruinously expensive if enough demand reduction was actually obtained to match the ever-diminishing supply. Our economy rests on an assumption of abundant water and we can’t simply pay people, year after year, to not grow food and to not eat. Water scarcity creates hunger.

Water demand curtailment is only half the story. We must also address supply. For too long, water policy in the American West has been a zero sum game, reallocating intrinsically scarce surface water. This approach has required ever more ambitious dams, canals for an ever-diminishing supply of excess water brought from further and further away, and has long since reached its practical limit. The key is to break the tyranny of meager and inconsistent rainfall by harnessing solar energy to create more water.

We advocate for an aggressive and proactive stance against incipient catastrophic water scarcity. It is not enough to cut usage now and hope for rain. Hope is not a strategy. We have the tools to take control of our destiny and it is long past time that we approach this problem with the seriousness it demands. As our forebears pioneered reservoirs and canals that brought water abundance to the Western US for more than a century, we must safeguard that hard-earned desert fertility for our descendants. 


What if we could solve water scarcity not by choosing lots and killing entire industries, but by simply generating more water? Water is not scarce on Earth, only fresh water upstream of our farms and cities. 

We propose refilling parched rivers by desalinating sea water and piping water upstream. 

We have the technology to convert sea water into fresh, via reverse osmosis (SWRO). Once an extremely expensive, niche technology applied mostly in the Middle East for drinking water alone, SWRO is now relatively mature and ready to be scaled. Much of the cost is energy, and solar electricity is now irresistibly cheap. 

The remaining cost is capital costs associated with building SWRO plants, but like solar this too is falling fast as deployment scales.

To take just one example, Arizona imports 2.8m acre-feet of water from the Colorado annually. SWRO could generate this with just 1 GW of electricity. Even including pumping and 25% solar utilization, just 20,000 acres of solar panels (a square 6 miles on a side) would be adequate to power 100% of Arizona’s imported water. This may sound like a lot but it’s just 2% of the land that Arizona already irrigates.

We could substitute the entire lower Colorado River’s annual flow of 9m acre-feet/year with about 13 GW of solar power, or roughly 3 weeks of global PV manufacturing output in 2021.

It seems absurd that such a trivial investment of land and energy is all that stands between our future and eternal unconditional water abundance.


We advocate for fresh water supply augmentation, to minimize impacts on downstream utilization and infrastructure. Our approach tops up economically important rivers in strategic locations. 

Tech review

The precise technical details of how SWRO works are not critical to this analysis, but a summary is presented here.

Sea water is pre-treated to remove fish, grit, and other macroscopic contaminants. It is then fed into the RO system (1) into a high pressure pump (A). High pressure is necessary to force fresh water through the osmotic membrane (C) which separates fresh water from a remaining  salty brine. Modern systems typically have multiple stages of RO filters. The desalinated fresh water leaves at low pressure (2), while the pass through brine leaves the cell still at substantial pressure (3). It passes through a pressure exchanger (D) where ~96% of its pressure energy is transferred to part of the incoming sea water stream. Low pressure brine leaves the system (5) and can be disposed of either by diluting it in a large stream of ordinary sea water, or by evaporating it in basins potentially to extract dissolved minerals. 

The fresh water, in a drinking water system, is typically subjected to post treatment to stabilize pH, add some salt back in to improve taste, and add chlorine and fluoride.

Modern SWRO systems are very efficient, producing a cubic meter of fresh water for just 2.5 kWh of electricity.

Learning curves

While SWRO is now a relatively mature technology, it has yet to be deployed at anything like the scale needed to refill rivers or irrigate millions of acres of land. This next generation of construction and development will both increase scale and reduce production cost, according to a phenomenological parameterization called the “learning curve”.

The learning curve describes the rate at which a process decosts, or becomes cheaper, per doubling of production rate. For solar power, the learning rate is between 30% and 40%, which is one of the reasons that solar power is now so cheap. For SWRO, the historical learning rate is around 15%.

Large scale present day plants cost around $6 per gallon per day, or $2m/acre-foot/day. This is relatively high compared to the cost of the solar panels, transmission lines, and feeder pipes or canals. 

Current SWRO global water production is 10m acre-feet per year, of which 22% is in Saudi Arabia. 10m acre-feet/year is roughly equivalent to the entire lower Colorado allocation, so we should not expect gratuitous reductions in construction cost from learning rate alone in the near future. That said, total US river flows are about 1.2b acre-feet/year, which represents nearly 7 doublings over current global SWRO water production, and would push SWRO prices down to 32% of their current costs.

In the short term, economies are available through relaxing the purity standard of the output water, most of which will be used for agriculture. 

Model System

To build up our intuition, let’s examine a model system that consumes just 1 GW of solar photovoltaic electricity. 1 GW of solar occupies roughly 20 km^2 of land, or 5000 acres, and costs about $1b to develop. We’ll assume 25% utilization, which is equivalent to 6 hours per day. It turns out that SWRO capital costs are high enough to justify charging and using batteries to keep the plant running overnight, so we’ll assume the plant consumes 250 MW and we have 4.5 GWh of batteries installed locally to operate the plant for the 18 hours of the day that the sun is mostly down. At $300/kWh, the batteries cost $1.35b. 

8760 hours per year at 250 MW is 2.19 GWh, or 876 million cubic meters of water, nearly a cubic km, or 710,000 acre-feet per year. This works out to 1945 acre-feet per day. A SWRO plant this size with present day technology costs $3.9b to build.

Value Proposition

Total capital costs are approximately $1b for the solar array, $1.35bm for the battery, and $3.9b for the SWRO plant, not including canals. 

In total, approximately $6b up front for 710,000 acre-feet/year. At $400/acre-foot, that’s $284m of revenue per year, or 21 years of operation to cover the capital cost. With solar and battery costs declining more than 10%/year, the payback period will continue to diminish.

The Central Arizona Project carries 2.8m acre-feet/year from Lake Havasu to Phoenix and Tucson. Just 4 GW of solar+SWRO are enough to completely replace the river as a source of water, providing a basis for unlimited abundance of water in Arizona, forever.


SWRO plants are typically operated close to the ocean. Fresh water must still be delivered to its end users. We have a fairly comprehensive network of existing canals in the American South West, but occasionally new canals will have to be built. Existing dams on rivers also simplify pumping water upstream, within the footprint of the relevant lake. 

Central Arizona Project canal emptied for maintenance. Credit: Tom Tingle/The Republic  

As an alternative, water tunneling technology is a mature, quick, and relatively inexpensive way to build a whole invisible underground parallel river system without disturbing anyone on the surface. Tunnels are less prone to evaporation than canals, but like them may suffer seepage unless the water course is lined with an impermeable material. 

While we can easily cover tunnels, evaporation and additional humidity is less of a concern if we’re generating post-scarcity water. The whole point of transporting SWRO fresh water inland is to increase humidity and extend the growing season. 

Scarcity and production ramp

While we develop the Colorado case study further below, there are dozens of other major rivers worldwide whose flows are threatened by shifting climate and whose inhabitants could apply GW-scale SWRO to ensure adequate agricultural output without further straining parched ecosystems. 

For the following rivers, we will assume a 10% shortfall of flow and compute what scale solar+SWRO plant would be required to make up the shortfall. 

RiverRegionAnnual flow (acre-feet/year)Size of plant to replace 10% of flow2021 deployment cost
ColoradoUS south west17.5m2.5 GW$15b
ColumbiaUS north west198m27.9 GW$179b
MississippiUS central556m78 GW$468b
SacramentoUS west22m3.1 GW$18.6b
MekongSouth-east Asia385m54 GW$324b
RhineEurope72m10.1 GW$60.6b
DanubeEastern Europe167m23.5 GW$141b
IndusPakistan142m20 GW$120b
TeestaSouth Asia203m28.6 GW$172b
Ganges+Brahmaputra+MeghnaIndia1014m142.8 GW$857b
RedUS south41m5.8 GW$34.8b
MurrayAustralia19.6m2.8 GW$16.8b
Amu DaryaCentral Asia60m8.5 GW$51b
Yellow RiverChina45m6.3 GW$37.8b

While none of these projects are cheap, it is easy to underestimate the scale they address. Cheap food requires abundant water, and water scarcity begets starvation. Projects of this nature will, under climate change adaptation, stand between a future of abundance and civilizational collapse. To further put costs in perspective, the aggregate cost of every project listed above comes to about $2.3t, a number that will diminish further with improved technology, and which pales in comparison to even US expenditure on COVID-related stimulus. In other words, we have entered the age of SWRO-enabled agricultural production.

Case Study – The Colorado River

Average flows on the Colorado have declined by more than 20% since 1900, a trend consistent with increased air temperatures in the Upper Colorado basin, which in turn increases evaporation and reduces precipitation. This trend is extremely unlikely to go away, leaving the US southwest with an insatiable thirst which cannot be quenched, except by the generation of additional fresh water.

Chart credit.

Chart credit. A graphical summary of water diversions from the Colorado River c. 2009, aptly illustrating just how little margin there is for supply reductions. Almost half the water is diverted through a small handful of canals into California, and more than half of the remainder into Arizona. 

Chart credit. Diagram showing the geographical location of the major Colorado-fed water diversions. 

Stage 1 – All American Canal and Colorado River aqueduct

The first step to relieving pressure on the Colorado River is to augment the supply of water diverted into the All American Canal, which totals nearly 3m acre-feet per year, almost a third of the total lower Colorado allocation. Additionally, the Coachella canal could in principle connect to the Colorado River Aqueduct, augmenting up to 1m additional acre-feet per year otherwise drawn from Lake Havasu to water Los Angeles. 

4m acre-feet need 5.6 GW ($33.4b capital cost) of solar powered sea water reverse osmosis, most likely located in the southern Imperial Valley east of the agricultural area. A connection to the gulf of California is required, making this an international project. As Mexico also relies on water from the Colorado, a deal to relieve pressure on natural flows would enjoy support on both sides of the border. Mexico’s current allocation of 1.5 m acre-feet per year could be freely increased to any desired level, ideally restoring the health of the Colorado delta and Mexico’s agricultural activity there.

Also in the Imperial Valley is the Salton Sea, a festering brackish lake in dire need of large-scale intervention. Local desal capability would extract economically valuable mineral salts from the lake, and thus regulate its level and salinity at a point more conducive to life and health for surrounding inhabitants.

Stage 2 – Central Arizona Project 

The Imperial Valley desalination system may augment the Colorado’s flow enough to solve the water scarcity problem in the US south west forever, but it is also possible that natural flows will continue to diminish as increased consumption of water upstream of the Imperial Dam once again encounters scarcity. In this case, the next largest consumer of water is Arizona, with a historical allocation of 2.8m acre-feet per year feeding both Phoenix and Tucson via the Central Arizona Project (CAP), completed in 1993. 

There are two potential ways to augment this flow. The first way is to expand the Imperial Valley SWRO project and pipe water north through the Palo Verde valley into Lake Havasu, where it can feed the CAP. The second is to build additional desal further south, in the Rio Sonoyta catchment, pump it north over the divide, and then reverse the flow direction of the CAP (this time in gravity’s favor!) to feed Tucson, Phoenix and the Salt River agricultural area, and perhaps even Lake Havasu on the Colorado itself. 

Stage 3 – Nevada and Lake Meade

As nearly the entirety of the lower Colorado is dammed, pumping water upstream from Lake Havasu to Lake Powell via Lake Mohave is relatively straightforward. A vertical lift at each dam using existing hydroelectric infrastructure, with relatively modest pipes or canals where the dams do not quite meet. Via this expedient the entire flow of the Lower Colorado could be assured even if the Grand Canyon ran dry indefinitely.

Stage 4 – Lake Powell

While it seems unlikely that, in the event of total augmentation of the lower Colorado, Lake Powell would continue to suffer water scarcity, it is still physically possible to pump water further up the river, feeding Lake Powell from Lake Meade.

The geographic obstacle to this is the Grand Canyon itself, with terrain that is decidedly unfriendly to canals! Several options present themselves. 

Conventional canals could be built to the north of the canyon, bypassing the Virgin River Gorge, St George, Hurricane, then traversing east parallel to the Utah/Arizona border.

Water tunnels can be built faster and cheaper than transport tunnels, and the Grand Canyon stratigraphy presents numerous layers of competent, horizontally bedded impermeable rock through which conventional boring techniques could drive a large tunnel in as little as a year, depending on haste and technology used.

Stage 5 – Restoration of natural rivers

Artificial lakes serve several purposes, including hydroelectric generation, flood control, and water storage. They also have benefits including climate moderation, transport, and recreation. On the other hand, they seriously disrupt ecosystems and flood enormous areas, so much so that dam removal is now in vogue.

What does the Colorado look like with solar desal supported flow and fewer (or no) dams? First, a somewhat more extensive water distribution system is needed to transport coastal desalinated fresh water inland and to plumb it into existing canals and/or tributaries. Second, the ability to rapidly control extreme flows regardless of precipitation and thereby to avoid catastrophic floods. 

In the limit, western rivers could return to their wild, economically unexploited former state while human uses of water could be fed directly via a parallel river system fed by SWRO. 


How much solar is needed to do this? Is this an extensible solution to an eternal problem?

Generation of fresh water from salt, using electricity, is relatively inexpensive. By contrast, direct electrical synthesis of gasoline uses 15,000 times as much energy per unit volume. While a 1 MW solar plant may be able to generate the equivalent of one barrel of oil, in hydrocarbons, that same solar plant running SWRO can generate 2385 cubic meters of water, which is nearly two acre-feet. Fortunately, per capita consumption of oil is about 300x less than water!

If all 8 billion people on Earth consumed as much fresh water as the US average (~1.1 acre-feet/cap/year), and 100% of that use was created with SWRO, we would need about 12.4 TW of solar power. That’s just 248,000 sqkm, or just 31 m^2 of solar array per person. This is an extreme scenario but aptly illustrates that, in 2022, water scarcity or abundance is no longer restricted by the vagaries of weather and climate; it is a choice. We should choose abundance.


Building anything carries economic and environmental impacts, but it is important to center the fact that choosing not to build is a choice that also carries a cost. In the case of water provision to the thirsty American West, decades of underinvestment have led to the collapse of natural river flows, the depletion of fossil water aquifers, and an otherwise undesirable brake on economic growth. 

Yes, gigascale SWRO has an environmental impact, but what is that impact compared to the default option of “business as usual”? Using a small portion of our practically infinite arid land to generate solar power seems a small price to pay for future-proof flows of enough fresh water to return much of the West to its Pleistocene climate of lakes, raging rivers, lush meadows and endless forests, should we so choose to return this land to its Eden-like state during the ice age just 10,000 years ago.

In the context of the proposed projects in California, Nevada, and Arizona, there is the potential for negative environmental impact, stemming from three major sources: solar power, brine disposal, and landscape modification through canal construction.

The stage 1 Colorado project described above, intended to substitute 4 million acre-feet per year, which is essentially all westward-bound extractions from the Colorado River, requires 5.6 GW of solar energy. For context, this is roughly 10 days of solar panel production in 2021, though the industry continues to grow explosively. 5.6 GW consumes roughly 112 square km of land, and if it was a single farm it would be the largest yet built, exceeding the Indian Bhadla Solar Park by a factor of two. This seems like a lot but it could easily be located east of Brawley far enough from any major road that most people would remain unaware of its existence.

This screenshot shows how 5.6 GW of solar would fit neatly to the east of the Imperial Valley agricultural areas, close enough to the All American and Coachella canals to feed them, while requiring new water transport only to access the ocean.

At greater remove, the city of Los Angeles is visible. The solar array is smaller than Palm Springs, smaller than Pasadena, smaller than the Salton sea, which it would help to rehabilitate.

Finally, at regional scale we can see the area of the land in California, Arizona, and Nevada that could finally be watered with a relatively modest development of existing technology for significantly less capital than Elon Musk used to buy Twitter.

Solar arrays have both positive and negative impacts on land. They increase shading and moisture retention, and involve substantially less modification to the surface than any other kind of human development, least of all agriculture. 

Brine disposal is a substantial concern with large scale desalination. Depleted brine returned from SWRO is roughly twice as salty and denser than sea water. Dumped into the ocean, it sinks to the ocean floor, and there can kill sea life rather than rapidly mixing with the rest of the ocean. 

SWRO brine is enriched in salt, and also in all the other minerals dissolved in the ocean, many of which are the lighter alkali metals, which are increasingly critical to the energy transition. In other words, we may see lower impact lithium, magnesium, and calcium extraction tacked onto SWRO, transforming brine disposal from a cost center to a profit center. Even boring old sodium chloride, or table salt, can be used as an additive in cement in enormous volumes. 

The key to reducing the biotic impact of SWRO brine is to ensure it is thoroughly mixed with an adequate supply of sea water that its salinity is not raised to an intolerable level. Different oceans have differing baseline salinity, and the quantities of fresh water extracted by SWRO are so vanishingly small compared to the ocean that the net impact on ocean salinity is the same as evaporation and natural rainfall, which is to say, zero. 

In the Colorado Stage 1 project, the SWRO plant can be sited anywhere in the Colorado delta, on either side of the US-Mexico border, since it is close enough to sea level to make little difference. The key is that the intakes flush a relatively large volume of sea water past the filtration system to prevent ingestion of sea life, while also creating a large enough current flow to dilute the returning brine stream. 

Canals also have impacts on the landscape, inhibiting the movement of animals if sufficient bridges are not built. Not every canal is open, however. The Colorado River Aqueduct is almost entirely underground, either tunneled or covered over to prevent both evaporation and sabotage. The landscape impact of canals is comparable to a similar sized road and is significantly less damaging than, say, urban construction. 

There are also positive impacts well worth enumerating, such as alleviation of salinity, improved agricultural productivity in both the US and Mexico, and the loosening of the yoke we’ve placed on the Colorado and other rivers. 

View from the future

With solar powered SWRO we can break the default balance between natural flows of fresh water and ever-present scarcity, permanently in favor of abundance. We can choose to argue and fight over relatively insignificant side issues for another decade or three, we can choose to kick the can down the road and leave yet another increasingly hopeless mess to our children’s generation. Or, we can choose to recognize that the times have found us here, and now, where our technology has broken down previously unbreachable barriers, and all we have to do is build our future as though we are eager to see it in our own lifetimes.

45 thoughts on “We need more water than rain can provide: refilling rivers with desalination

    1. Agreed. Growing cotton, almonds and rice in a desert is not smart, no matter how much money you throw at it. Let actual market forces prevail.


    1. Because it’s expensive. Long term it might arguably make sense, but the conservatives would never agree to a massive government project using national funds that is seen to mostly benefit California. We’d also have to get Mexico on board with this. As pointed out, it would help them, but it’s still another non-trivial step in the process.

      And what do you do with the leftover toxic brine? This will kill all marine life around wherever the spigot is. Evaporating it in the desert might work, but would require a whole lot of space. We’d be creating another Salton Sea, but maybe not quite that large.


  1. As a megaproject, this could also be replicated in places that have similar geography. The Qattara Depression, Lake Eyre and Lake Assal would all be pretty good candidates. Offering public matching funds for farmers to switch to more efficient (and expensive) irrigation technologies would help from the consumption side, like subsurface drip irrigation. https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/subsurface-drip-irrigation-sdi-4-716/ Ultimately none of these things will actually reduce total demand, only efficiency and per-capita use.


  2. Appreciate this analysis. Questions that pop up in my mind:
    – Which (if any) political entities stand to lose if the Colorado River is replaced with desalinated Seawater?
    – What weather changes are expected due to increased humidity? Can we expect “lake effect” style thunderstorms and rainfall in areas Eastward?
    – What if the prices drop so low that there is a runaway effect, and we see water usage increase 5x in that area?


  3. Although the idea seems promising, I feel uneasy about the minimal discussion (and numbers) related to the SWRO brine part. Dealing with the “waste” byproducts needs to be part of the full equation — and it seems to me that there would be a LOT of brine accumulating to get the amounts of fresh water you are predicting.


      1. Could put it in an oil tanker type ship with some kind of mixing pump/valve and drive it in big circuits around the ocean to distribute it (and vary the routes so no single area gets too much salt). Tankers are really cheap (relative to this project) and efficient to run.


  4. I’m sorry to say but you’ve neglected the energy costs of pumping all that water uphill, which I think may be significant.
    If we take that 876 million cubic metres of water and pump it to, say, lake powell, the total change in gravtiatonal energy is
    m = 876 10^6 m3 water = 876 10^9 kg
    g = 9.81
    h = 375m lake meade
    mgh = 3.22 10^ 15 J = 895 GWh
    , if my calculations are correct, the enegy cost of pumping the water exceeds the cost of desalination by far. Now obviously IRL all that water wouldnt go to lake meade but a back of the envelope calculation shows that the water pumping costs shouldn’t be ignored.
    It would probably be better to use desal for providing coastal cities with 100% of their water and simply reducing the amount that we pull out of the rivers in the first place


    1. I didn’t break down overall costs for the headwaters project but in general pumps can run on solar and desal runs on pumps, but at higher pressure. So I think the energy cost is relatively low.


      1. I have no expertise here, but 250 MW =0.25GW, 0.25GW * 8760h = 2190GWh, or 2.190TWh, right? Or am I missing a factor of 1000? That makes Martin’s 895 GWh less than the desal, but still significant of 3085 GWh total. I’m not sure if that changes the other numbers in the article.


    2. Lake Mead is dammed right? So you’re not losing 895 GWh pumping, but storing it ala pumped hydro? Or am I misunderstanding the physics of this scenario?

      Also as I pointed in my other comment, the article’s 2.19GWh is a typo, it’s actually 2190 GWh (the following math looks to be based on that number). So 895 GWh is 40% more. But if you’re going upstream of a dam I assume you can treat it like pumped hydro and get back 80% (just quickly Googled that number, not sure how accurate it is), so 895*(1-0.8)=179 GWh, so 8% more energy required for the pumps.

      If you upsize the solar and battery by 8% that increases the payback period from 21 to 22.5 years… I don’t imagine that really changes things.


    3. By first-google-hit numbers, desalination takes up to 1000 psi, one psi is about 2.3 feet of water, and the altitude of Lake Mead is 1230 feet. So the crude estimate is that desal should take about twice as much energy as lifting. Desal also pressurizes the brine and only recovers part of the energy, whereas transport has losses to friction, and I have no idea what the orders of magnitude are for those.


  5. Water cycle is not just rain and river flow to the oceans. Vegetagion cover is crucial to replenishing ground water tables and regional recycling and micro-climate control. Agroforestry not just for annual crops, but with fruits, wood production, even with animal feeding (google “sintropic agriculture” for example), seems to be a more effective way to reduce industrial fertilizar use, and oil need to grow food and fixate carbon to the soil. Monocultured crops demand too much fertilizer and pesticides that causes oil dependency, nitrogen and soil runoff, clogging rivers and allowing algae blooms in coastals waters. In fact, allocating funds to allowing small farmers to do agroforestry seems to bring a more bang for the buck than heavy mega-projects.


    1. For the most part, we can use electricity (from any source, notably solar or nuclear) to run fertilizer and pesticide synthesis, solving the oil dependency problem that way. Agricultural machinery would probably still be powered by something like oil, but that is a much smaller problem.

      Indeed, I’d draw a parallel between this proposal and the Haber process. Just as artificial nitrogen fixation alleviated the need to e.g. fallow land (or generally, grow less-productive crops for their nitrogen-fixing effect), artificial clean water supply alleviates the water-related constraints on crop selection. This thinking can be extrapolated toward different endpoints; one is to largely solve all constraints on growing food, exemplified by hydroponics/aeroponics (the goal being to make them closely price-competitive with field agriculture). Another, perhaps farther-fetched one, is to do an end-run around biological photosynthesis altogether and turn simple/inorganic feedstocks into staple foods via a process path not going through rubisco, such as syngas fermentation.


      1. Just to clarify, I’m not advocating greening fetilizer and herbicides/pesticides production nor oil fueled machinery use.
        Due to plant, soil microbiota and animal interactions, forested areas creates its own fertilizer and keep pest populations in check, prescinding any pesticides use.
        Rsecovering forests replenishes water tables and bring back water flow and creating an agroforest, it garantees food and water security (watch this: https://vimeo.com/146953911).
        This method is completely carbon-negative and don’t need industrial fetilizer/pesticides production, hence my ceticism in big geoengeneering projects.


  6. It would be overwhelmingly more efficient use of resources to float the solar panels on the canals and reservoirs involved, rather than laying them out in deserts, cutting evaporation and bio-fouling while keeping the panels cool for better efficiency and longevity, and also more easily cleaned of dust. California has begun experimenting with PV on canals, while in India it is already in full production. So, panel area is moot.

    Brine may be returned to the sea via a long leaky hose, eliminating effects of excess salt concentration on wildlife by distribution along its length. There is no need to produce extremely concentrated brine, anyway: there is plenty of seawater, and it takes less energy to extract fresh water from less-concentrated brine.

    You don’t need expensive PV and reverse osmosis to separate fresh water from brine: greenhouses can do the job at much less capital cost, with incoming water used to cool the glass that fresh water will condense onto the bottom of, and heat exchanged from outgoing brine to incoming brine after it drains off the condenser and spreads out over black evaporation pans.

    In some places, condensing the fresh water is unnecessary; the water vapor may be released for the wind to carry off, to rain out into mountain streams collected behind alpine dams. North/central California is ideally situated for this mode, with myriad dams in long use in the Sierra Nevada range.


    1. I’ve often wondered what it would take to use the Mississippi river system to redistribute water around the country especially during droughts and floods. Start with high capacity pumping stations at every lock on the Illinois river so it can be made to run backwards into Lake Michigan during spring. And pumps in the other direction so the great lakes can return the favor in a drought. Then maybe run the Arkansas river backwards, and into the Rio Grande, or maybe even pipe water through the Rockies into the Colorado. (And if that’s feasible, we should pipe water through the Himalayas… Getting off track here) A lot could be done even before you throw in desalination. But my assumption has always been that this would be expensive, both capital and energy intensive. Whereas your analysis treats this portion of the cost as free. Granted the distances involved in the Colorado idea are shorter, but I’m fairly sure the infrastructure to move a river-sized flow of water has got to be more expensive per mile than the high capacity power lines or rails you don’t think are worth building. What sort of costs are you assuming?

      Also, do the San Joaquin next. And pipe extra to Lake Tahoe…


  7. I’m wondering what the energy requirements for this are compared to what the relevant states’ current power generation is.
    If we’re talking about doubling it for instance, I think you might run into many of the same problems that they currently have with increasing generation.


      1. By “problems” I’m talking about the lawfare the NIMBYs engage in to prevent new generation coming online.
        Grid connection or not, you’re talking about changing a large portion of landscape. I’m sure there’s some rare species that is or can be found on any proposed patch.


  8. Other thought: are we sure we need to desalinate and move the water? The warmer atmosphere is carrying more water not less. (This can be bad — it amplifies the greenhouse effect and we often get too much rain when we get it at all.) The water we need is already right over or heads, so what if we devoted our terraforming efforts to pulling it out of the atmosphere?

    One possibility: in Arizona there is about ten times as much water in the air as CO2. If you’re planning to pull the CO2 out, why not get the water at the same time? On one of the threads someone mentioned freezing as a possible method of collecting CO2 in dry ice form; this would provide water as well.

    The other way to go is it may be possible to geoengineer it. My simplest idea is to paint strategically located white patches on mountains throughout the great basin. The idea is to slow down the melting of snow, thus triggering a positive feedback loop where much more of the mountain gets covered in snow, resulting in much colder temperatures at the top of the mountain, which should cause more precipitation to happen on the mountain.


    1. Condensing is about 1000x more energetically intensive than desal. Yes we can capture some as we filter CO2 but it’s not very much. People use 300x more water than fuel.

      Snow is white which helps keep it cool if it’s thick enough.


  9. Interesting idea. In a way, I tend to think that desalination has more benefits for the state than the California High-Speed Rail project.

    While I see the value of pushing water up to sources of the Colorado River, the scope scares me. There should be a way to prove this on a smaller scale.

    I found that Castaic Lake is just north of Los Angeles and Santa Clarita, and about 55-60 miles away from coastal cities Ventura and Port Hueneme. In fact, Castaic apparently already has a “pumped-storage hydroelectric” facility on it (pumping from lower to higher levels). Reading its Wikipedia page, it appears that Castaic Lake is used for recreation, power, and water distribution to the Greater Los Angeles Area. Perhaps this is would make a good demonstration with multiple beneficial uses before embarking on the multi-phase Colorado River project?


  10. Would mooring solar panels on (or suspending them over) the canals seem reasonable to reduce evaporation & footprint. Having spent most of my life between a wet island and a city built on a swamp I may have a more sedate waterway in mind.


  11. Dr Handmer, why reverse osmosis instead of multistage flash distillation? It uses about 10x more energy than reverse osmosis, roughly 25 kWh/m^3 instead of 2.5 for osmosis. However, solar energy as you note is declining roughly 10-15% every year or about 75% per decade. This could put solar costs at like $2-3/MWh in the American Southwest in about ten years. 25 kWh/m^3 * $2.5/MWh * 1233 m^3/acre-foot = $77/acre foot for electricity costs. Possibly 25 kWh/m^3 isn’t needed for agricultural usage since the purity doesn’t need to be as high. Likewise, at $1/MWh the energy cost is $31/m^3. That seems pretty competitive with some water in Arizona and California now selling for $200+ per acre-foot.

    As I under it, flash distillation is much simpler with accordingly lower capital costs than reverse osmosis.

    What do you think?


      1. Nice piece except that you haven’t addressed the west coast environmental lobby. The Carlsbad desalinization plant was held up in court for over 20 years costing the developers millions of dollars in just permitting and legal expenses.

        It might work, if you put desalinization operations on abandoned offshore oil platforms or on anchored “oil tanker” sized ships since the big environmental objection has been brine disposal. Brine could be disbursed at sea through dilution without much impact.

        A more reliable desalinization process uses carbon aerogel. Reverse osmosis membranes are maintenance nightmare and costly.

        Many books have been written over the years about this subject including TAPPED OUT by former U.S. Senator Paul Simon. He was a very powerful individual in Congress and couldn’t get anything done. It’s incredible how many environmental groups have NIMBY oposition to desalinization.

        I hope you can convince someone to finance. California wants to be a victim in this argument even though they have taken more than their share of the Colorado river water since the beginning of the water distribution pact.


  12. Or pipe low mass, low-friction hydrogen up the tunnels to power plants which make water and electricity. Hydrogen can be made at large-scale cheaper than natural gas per energy unit by the Proton Technologies process for example.

    Also there are vast geological deposits of deep non-potable water across the USA. Oilfield associated water for example can often be multiples of ocean salinity. Just take from there and re-inject the waste-brine into oilfield bottom-water (with oxygen and/or CO2 injection to trigger carbonate forming reactions in the pore-space (which realeases deeply “carbon negative” hydrogen).


  13. The sad part of these article is there is no discussion of over population. 100 years LA was buying water rights. What does that tell you? Yes, millions of illegals are allowed to flood into Cali and southwestern US which only aggravates the water shortage. But, votes are more important so liberals can be re elected. What happens when the Colorado is dry?


  14. You want more water than rain can provide, it’s rather simple. You need more vegetation. Stop throwing technology at all of our problems. Pretty great Netflix documentary called kiss the ground with Woody Harrelson


  15. Love the amazing technical discussion on this site but… a large high-tech civil engineering project in California? To be completed with a finite budget within a finite timeframe? O’Neill cylinders in the Belt are more likely in my lifetime.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s