A Really Big Straw for a Really Big Gulp: The Washington-to-California Pipeline

red pipe from shutterstock.com

Researchers in California have decided that it’s possible to build a really big pipeline in the Pacific Ocean to send a large amount of water from the Columbia River in the Northwest to Northern California. No joke.

One of those researchers, Jack Jones from the Jet Propulsion Laboratories (JPL) in California, spoke about the project at the Hydrofutures conference in Seattle in July. Mr. Jones examined the feasibility of constructing a 33-foot diameter pipeline extending from the mouth of the Columbia River out into the Pacific Ocean at a depth of 328 feet below the surface. The pipeline would run 372 miles to California, where it would connect to the state aqueduct system in Shasta Lake or possibly extended down to the San Francisco Bay where it would be fed into the water system in the San Joaquin River Delta area.

The pipeline, with an estimated price tag of $140 billion, would be constructed primarily of Kevlar and would have a lifetime of just a decade (possibly more according to Jones). No mention was made of what would happen to the pipe if and when the water stopped flowing through it. The pipe would be designed to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year, roughly three times the amount of water delivered by the Colorado River aqueduct to California. That’s also one-third the amount of water delivered each year to the 19 million people served by Southern California’s Metropolitan Water District.

To be fair, the folks at JPL were only tasked with doing a physical feasibility study with a rough cost estimate, and they concluded that the pipeline would be possible to construct. An environmental, political and true financial feasibility study, however, surely would not produce such positive results.

The engineering kid in me is totally excited at the thought of constructing something of this magnitude. The environmental advocate, on the other hand, is not. I can’t help thinking that we're headed in the absolute wrong direction when we even consider projects like these.

Most water consumption in California goes toward irrigation. How about spending some of that $140 billion to make every farm in California a smart farm with water-wise irrigation methods and sensors that help farmers know precisely how much water their fields need? Water saved through efficiency efforts so often reduces or eliminates the need for development of new supplies.

A major water withdrawer in California - power production - is already making changes. The state is requiring all coastal power plants to convert from once through cooling systems – systems that withdraw massive amounts of water - to closed-cycle or air-cooled systems. Requiring all power plants with once-through cooling systems to convert to closed-cycle or air-cooling where feasible would more readily assure that adequate water supplies are available for power production during times of water scarcity and drought.

At a municipal level, water rate structures typically favor those who use water in excess by decreasing the cost per unit of water as customers use more. Rather than looking for new water sources, municipal water providers could implement rate structures such as water budgets that give customers just as much water as they need while charging a lot more for water that is wasted. That $140 billion could subsidize major metropolitan water district conversions to more water efficient rate structures, helping to make new developments, such as pipelines from the Northwest, unnecessary.

These solutions aren’t as sexy as sinking a massive pipeline in the ocean, I know. But they are so much more reasonable and speak to an ethic of conservation and sustainability. Major pipelines represent more of the same craziness as we try to over-engineer our way out of the unsustainable situation we've over-engineered ourselves into.

I have to believe that if this project were brought to fruition, it would become one of many straws that would suck the Columbia River delta dry. We've already seen the devastating impact of over-allocation of the Colorado River on its delta. Let’s not start down that same road with the Columbia River.

Responses to "A Really Big Straw for a Really Big Gulp: The Washington-to-California Pipeline"
The views and opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Ecocentric Blog or GRACE Communications Foundation.

  1. Ed

    Take the water from the mouth of the Columbia River - before it flows into the ocean.

  2. Ed

    Take the water from the mouth of the Columbia River - before it flows into the ocean.

  3. Mark Atwood

    To complete my own previous post...I must point out that the MOUTH of the Columbia River is NOT necessarily directly offshore from Astoria OR as some may believe...or as it pertains to getting that water for a California bound pipeline. Fresh water from the Columbia River extends far out into to the ocean....many miles north...and at times as far south as San Francisco. This fact...and taking advantage of it if technology allows....sort of tells Oregon they don't need much payment for water that always has and always will be a total waste as it only pours into the ocean

  4. Mark Atwood

    A water pipeline from the Columbia River is the one and only long term solution. This is simply redistributing a commodity from an area where it is either grown, manufactured, or naturally in abundance....to where it is needed. The Columbia River pours billions and trillions of gallons of water every second of every day into the ocean where the water goes unused, unwanted, unneeded, and totally wasted. Additionally, Washington and Oregon get huge amounts of annual rainfall....making the area one of the greatest rain buckets of the entire country. AND, finally, the above article cites taking the water from the MOUTH of the river.....AFTER whatever purpose or need that water had further upstream has been fulfilled. With that in mind, I can't imagine any reason why Washington or Oregon should be paid anything at all for water they always have and always will let go to waste as it rolls into the ocean However, I do think other cities and states....( Las Vegas NV as one big and obvious example ) should chip in and pay for part of the building costs as well as paying Oregon for the water----if for some crazy legal reason Oregon did deserve to be paid. When Las Vegas, for example, pays their share of the costs, that could entitle Las Vegad NV to take a larger share of water from a Lake Meade before it runs downstream to California.

  5. Mark Atwood

    A water pipeline from the Columbia River is the one and only long term solution. This is simply redistributing a commodity from an area where it is either grown, manufactured, or naturally in abundance....to where it is needed. The Columbia River pours billions and trillions of gallons of water every second of every day into the ocean where the water goes unused, unwanted, unneeded, and totally wasted. Additionally, Washington and Oregon get huge amounts of annual rainfall....making the area one of the greatest rain buckets of the entire country. AND, finally, the above article cites taking the water from the MOUTH of the river.....AFTER whatever purpose or need that water had further upstream has been fulfilled. With that in mind, I can't imagine any reason why Washington or Oregon should be paid anything at all for water they always have and always will let go to waste as it rolls into the ocean However, I do think other cities and states....( Las Vegas NV as one big and obvious example ) should chip in and pay for part of the building costs as well as paying Oregon for the water----if for some crazy legal reason Oregon did deserve to be paid. When Las Vegas, for example, pays their share of the costs, that could entitle Las Vegad NV to take a larger share of water from a Lake Meade before it runs downstream to California.

  6. David Morgan

    Cost of the Iraq war was over $900 Billion. What did we Americans get in return on that investment? A pipe line from Washington, through Oregon to California, even with all the barriers to its construction would pose a financial benefit to all states affected. California farmers, like the farmers in WA and Oregon are not the enemy. They do need water and obviously need to use the most efficient methods to conserve water. Imagine if the income from WA and Oregon selling water to California paid for all the education and health insurance for all children in each state. When we look at the irrigation systems in place by using the Columbia river, a project started in the 1930, we can see the befits to our entire nation. I think its time to take a serious look at the pipeline and determine what is factual vs what is emotional guesses.

  7. EJ House

    why is a 33ft diameter passage needed, it doesn't have to be done in large volume, just consistent flow. I agree with previous post, run along route 5 with several pumping stations along the way. or even better, The Carlsbad Desalination Plant in San Diego Ca, has been underway and set to open later this year, at a fraction of the cost of a 33ft diameter pipeline, it has been a $1 Billion project 15 years in the making, can produce 50million gallons of water in 1 day, and reduce global warming effect of oceans rising. Saudi's have been doing this for years successfully.

  8. David Bischoff

    Wouldn't it be less costly if you used the Interstate Highway system, the right of ways are already there, run the pipeline down the middle of Interstate 5.

  9. suiattle

    Wow. Once again other states are being asked to bend over backwards to support the wasteful tendencies of the golden state. What about the economic impact on the fisheries supported by the Columbia river system in both WA and OR? A redirect like this could cripple an already stressed fishery and take away jobs from people who have been doing this for decades, all so Californians can water their pretty lawns. This idea is a joke and should never, ever happen. California can take their 140 billion dollar pipeline and take a hike.

  10. Nick

    I believe that this should definitely be built.The Columbia River has 265,000 cubic feet per second being wasted into the Pacific.If we do this the water shortage in the southwest would be eliminated.If all of the water were taken from just above the salt fresh inversion layer than there would be little to no environmental impact at the delta.The pipeline’s lifespan could be increased by using steel or concrete to build it.The money would come from investors wo would pay for a percentage of the cost and get that percentage of the water sales for 3 years perhaps.

  11. Robin Madel

    Sheila, I appreciate the comment. This was intended to cover the Columbia end of the pipeline. A look at the receiving end is certainly a good topic for a future post. Thanks for the idea. Robin

  12. Shiela Wilcox

    I agree with your statement on over-allocation of the Columbia River in Washington but lets take a look at the Sacramento River right here in our backyard which will be in real danger of over allocation if the proposed plan for the Delta water is to be considered i.e. the pipeline or canal. The Delta is a farming community of real people and businesses that have a long history. Please do some homework.

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on topic. You represent that comments submitted do not infringe upon anyone's rights including copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights.


We need to make sure you're a human and not a spambot. Please answer the following question. What is 19 + 6 equal to?

By submitting a comment here you grant us a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/website in attribution.