Democrat Janice Hanh is a state representative from the Los Angeles area. With the drought conditions growing more severe, her along with others in California have started to explore the option of shipping water from Alaska. Their intended goal is to bring water into the state to help alleviate the dire conditions created by the lack of rain throughout the state. The idea has benefits, but to some, just the idea of shipping that much water from one state to another is not something they believe is feasible.
The Transportation Dilemma
In Sitka, Alaska, Blue Lake receives a massive amount of rain each year, so much so that Alaska Bulk Water is allowed to sell over 9 billion gallons each year. While representative Hanh wants to purchase the water and bring it to California, the question remains, “How do you move that much water efficiently?” Several decades ago, the idea of building a pipeline between the two states was conceived. Eventually, it was turned down due to the cost and the belief that it would not be needed in the future. Now that California is once again feeling the effects of a lengthy drought, buying Alaskan water has once again surfaced as a possible solution.
The main problem is how to move that much water effectively and efficiently. One solution is to fill large bladders or plastic bags with water and ship it like you would any other type of cargo. While this is a feasible idea, many people are cringing at the fact that the only port capable of receiving those types of shipments is the one in Los Angeles. Most people see this is a kickback for Hanh who is from the Los Angeles area. There are other options for shipment as well, but most are not cost effective or reliable when it comes to moving massive amounts of liquid.
Is It Worth The Cost?
The cost to ship the amount of water needed to even make a dent in California's water shortage is staggering. The CEO of Alaska Bulk Water, Terry Trapp said it would cost approximately six cents per gallon to ship the water from state to state. At that price, the cost per gallon is extremely costly, especially since a gallon of water produced in California costs less than a cent. The total price tag each year would end up being over $540 million. With only 9 billion gallons available for sale, only a fraction of California's 12 million families would receive any kind of help. It is estimated that around 70,000 families would benefit.
There are many options available to California residents. One of which Hanh has considered before. Instead of shipping the water and have it dispersed throughout the state, another option would be to provide water to specific areas, such as Catalina Island. Alaska Bulk Water has already committed to sending several hundred million gallons of water to Mexico, so it is doubtful that California would receive the entire amount that is for sale. No matter how it is divided up, experts on both sides claim that it will only provide a fraction of what California really needs.
Both Trapp and Hanh have stated in the past that, even though the idea is considered far fetched, it can be accomplished. The main obstacles will always be transportation and overall cost. While the option is still on the table, California residents want their legislators to continue looking into other options. Finding the right solution may not be cheap. The key is to explore as many options as possible and continue to hope that the upcoming El Nino storms will provide at least a minimal amount of relief.
