William Shatner has recently started a kickstarter campaign to save California. He proposes that by raising US $30,000,000,000, a pipeline could be built to transport water to California from Seattle, Washington.
Shatner, most famously known for boldly going where no man has gone before, is neither being particularly bold, nor is his proposed enterprise going anywhere new. Continental-scale, inter-basin water transfer schemes have been around for a very long time.
The Romans were famous for the aqueducts they built. One lesson learned from the Romans is that water infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain. The Romans funded these mega projects by conquering new lands to provide resources such as slaves for labour. A flaw in their model was that the more land they conquered the more infrastructure they needed to build resulting in growth that depended on growth, which is inherently unsustainable. It is noteworthy that some of these projects outlived the economy they were built for by a couple of thousand years. Perhaps the Romans were a trifle too bold.
A more recent example that was even bolder was the NAWAPA project. The North American Water and Power Alliance was conceived to capture water in Alaska and the Yukon and transport it south through the rocky mountain trench to Montana where it would be directed to supplement flow in both the Yellowstone and Colorado Rivers.
Many of the stream gauges in Northern BC and the Yukon, where I cut my teeth as a young stream hydrographer, were initially funded to establish the feasibility of NAWAPA. If those gauges didn’t exist it, it’s possible that I would never have got my first job with the Water Survey and the career that I have enjoyed so much. By today’s standards NAWAPA isn’t a megaproject – it would be a gigaproject.
NAWAPA was not considered feasible at that time … but at that time California didn’t have an economy of US$2.2 trillion, of which US$43 billion is from agriculture. At that time California had an abundance of freshwater – in fact, I used to holiday in Northern California for some of the best whitewater kayaking in the world on many of the rivers that now exist in name only. At that time, the Arctic was full of thick sea ice, setting up a strong jet stream creating favourable weather patterns in California.
Perhaps the proposal that Shatner is making is as bold a plan as we should consider. But perhaps he should add a few zeros to his estimate if he really wants to make a difference. He is probably understating the risks of not compensating for climate-driven re-distribution of water availability. What is the right size of project? I am pretty sure that failing to respond in any meaningful way is not a path to good health and prosperity.
One alternative to water transfer projects would be to move people from California to the Yukon, where there is lots of water. That doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea. Desalination might work but it would require doubling California’s energy demand. Where is the new energy going to come from?
Adapting to climate change is ugly.
Another alternative is to do nothing. Doing nothing will substantially reduce our ability to feed ourselves and will most likely drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty.
Not adapting to climate change is ugly.
There are tough decisions ahead. Decisions will be made and, in the absence of adequate hydrological information, the decision will be either a failure to respond or a ‘best guess’ that comes with a high risk of failure. Water monitoring to reduce risk in such tough decisions is more important than ever.
It is still possible that data that I collected 35 years ago will be influential in a decision to either revive, or bury, one of the most ambitious water transfer projects of all time. However, that is clearly not enough. Every watershed along the route would be profoundly impacted and many have never been gauged. Relevant, reliable, and trustworthy hydrological information is required before we can be confident that sum of consequences of action are substantially less than the sum of consequences of inaction.
Photo credit: Book jacket of ‘Shatner Rules’ by William Shatner with Chris Regan.
There is a solution … you understand the value of water monitoring but need additional, sustainable funding. Know that you are not alone. The gap between water monitoring capability and the rapidly evolving need for evidence-based policies, planning, and engineering design is growing. Learn how to form persuasive arguments that are sensitive to local politics and priorities to address this global deficit in funding. The benefits of hydrological information DO vastly outweigh investments in water monitoring.