Time for Oregon to cash in Columbia water?

[depakid]

Either the Northwest sells or the thirsty Southwest starts moving here; so now what?

When parched Southwest states recently considered ways they might bring more water to the overtaxed Colorado River, they imagined snaking a fiberglass straw up the Pacific coast and sipping from the Columbia River.

That's probably a pipe dream, but it's also a recurring vision the drenched Northwest might not want to laugh off forever.

When desert cities -- enduring record drought -- reach the breaking point, water will have to come from somewhere. And water in the West is largely a zero-sum game: For someone to get it, someone else will have to give it up.

Although the Northwest appears to be swimming in water, rapid growth and salmon demands mean most of it is spoken for in summer. But if some is up for grabs at other times, what should we do with it?

Is water the new oil, and could Oregon become the new Texas? Could the Northwest sell some of its wealth of water the way Alaska sells oil from its pipeline?

At least one Oregon lawmaker says so, seeing water sales as a way to fund public services without raising taxes. But a veteran of Northwest salmon fights warns the region to resolve its internecine bickering over fish and water so it can mount a united defense if the Southwest comes knocking.

Because, in a drier future, the choices are few: Either people move to the water, migrating northwest as the Southwest runs dry. Or water moves to the people, through a new generation of long-distance pipelines and canals.

"There will be nothing done with water in the West without there being winners and losers," says Patrick O'Toole, a Wyoming rancher and president of the Family Farm Alliance. Cities may expect to buy water from farms, but that's not a good solution as global food shortages make farming a crucial national need, he says.

So they may have to look elsewhere.

Oregon laws probably would not allow the sale of water outside the state, but Alaska changed its law years ago so it could pipe water to Los Angeles if the opportunity arose. Asked how much California would have to pay for Alaskan water, former Alaska Gov. Walter "Wally" Hickel said, "Depends how thirsty they are."

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218263105159940.xml&coll=7

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

1. Not at the cost of our environment

Just as salmon-spurning dams are beginning to be removed, and having given salmon and the rest of the ecosystems just a couple of years to begin recovery, suddenly greedy eyes are searching for new resources to exploit.

Long-term water-management techniques is a sparsely studied field. The continuing failure of our attempts at flood control and our inability to second-guess nature demands further study.

But we've so thoroughly trashed our natural surroundings that it is absolutely imperative we inhibit further destruction and protect what remains.

[hogwyld]

2. The desert dwellers need to conserve their own resources

before they get a drop of our precious resource. First of all, no more pools, green grassy yards, and for heavens sake, get rid of the golf courses! Irrigating the desert is also extremely wasteful.
Diverting the Columbia river to arid regions is shortsighted at best, and until they can conserve better, then they need to be resource limited in their growth. :rant: