But that requires a government that can and wants to do things. I hope to be surprised, but I don't see California doing either of these things...

It's not like you should be irrigating fields with that mineral-heavy water anyways, isn't it slowly salting the land?

If agriculture had to foot the bill for their desalination needs they would become more efficient automatically.

Please no. We're facing intense inflation, and the solution has to involve supply-side improvements, not just demand-side tweaks.

Subsidies for drip irrigation sounds interesting, though - as long as actual water usage reduction is part of the requirement.

And it's not just California facing a water crisis. The Colorado river flows through multiple states and it's drying up at an alarming rate.

But we can agree that all available policy knobs should be tuned.

Fresh water is scarce and the demand for fresh water continues to grow annually (growing population, growing economy, etc). Fresh water is an appreciating asset, with fixed (or reducing) supply. Increasing the supply of fresh water is beneficial for many, many reasons globally, and increasing investment into desalination will keep reducing the cost (helping developing countries also build desalination).

Getting society to "use less fresh water" is non-competitive, and at best a medium term "stop gap". The economy is competitive, it doesn't "allow for" non-competitive players. You can try to change the inertia of the economy, but you would likely fail.

Building infrastructure to increase the amount of fresh water we have on earth (without unaccounted for externalities - e.g. it should be carbon-neutral/negative) is economically competitive and as such 1. durable; 2. improves lives; 3. changes the mental-model from "wasted water" to "wasted energy" (which is a simpler problem to solve).

> I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it.

Spreading this message of disagreement with increasing durable, cost-effective, and carbon-neutral infrastructure because it is not cost-optimal does a disservice to the global population and the long term sustainability of the global ecosystem. Way better off with the message "I agree with building more desalination. We should also get ... to do ...".

Or just add tariffs for anything we'd like to curb export of - that's the traditional solution, and it does work. Then turn around and use the tariff proceeds to further alleviate water issues.

which means that around $20B/year will cover desalination of all the water consumed in California solving all the environmental issues caused by water consumption, and all those problems probably would become close to nonexistent even if we cover only half the needs at $10B/year. Especially considering that climate change would be making situation only worse, and thus desalination is unavoidable anyway.