Alaskan Water for California?: The Subsea

Pipeline Option

January 1992

OTA-BP-O-92

NTIS order #PB92-157627
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea

Pipeline Option Background Paper, OTA-BP-O-92 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, January 1992).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16 -036021-8
Foreword

Even more than gold and silver, fresh water has shaped—and will continue to shape-the

development of the Western United States. In the arid and semiarid regions of the Southwest,

in particular, ensuring that there will be enough water to satisfy the future demands of

consumers is a full-time job. Five years of drought in the West have elevated the issue of water

supply on the list of regional concerns. Questions about who gets the available water, where

it will come from, how it is used, how much is paid for it and by whom, and where future

demand will go are of paramount importance to farmers, planners, environmentalists,

professional water managers, and, increasingly, average citizens.

Various options for increasing supply and for reducing demand for water are being

considered with renewed intensity by California water planners. This OTA background paper

focuses on one technological option for increasing the supply of fresh water to the

Southwest-that of building a freshwater subsea pipeline to transport water from Alaska to

California. Originally a suggestion by Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska, the proposal has

recently attracted attention in southern California.

To help determine whether construction of a subsea pipeline merits additional attention,

Congressmen George E. Brown, Jr. and Edward Roybal of California and Don Young of

Alaska asked the Office of Technology Assessment to conduct a brief evaluation of the idea.

This paper examines important issues related to this subject, including engineering feasibility

and cost, Alaskan water availability, California’s projected water demand, and other

alternatives for meeting future water needs. This study is not a detailed engineering feasibility

analysis; indeed, no such study has yet been undertaken. It suggests that California needs to

better understand the many demand, supply, and pricing options available to meet future water

demand, including the relative costs, benefits, and ultimate potential of each.

 JOHNH. GIBBONS

Director

. . .

Ill
Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many individuals and organizations who shared their special knowledge, expertise, and

information with us in the preparation of this background paper. We are especially indebted to those who participated in

our subsea pipeline workshop in Los Angeles, California.

Participants, OTA Subsea Pipeline Workshop

August 14,1991

Don Kash, Chairman

Hazel Chair of Public Policy

Institute of Public Policy

George Mason University

Craig Bell

Executive Director

Western States Water Council

Michael B. Bessler

Chief, General Engineering Branch

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior

Jeanne-Marie Bruno

Head, Wastewater Reclamation Branch

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Neal Cline

General Manager

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

Cliff Davidson

Chairman, House Resources Committee

Alaska State Legislature

Robert Gottlieb

Lecturer

Urban Planning Program

University of California at Los Angeles

Robert Hattoy

Southern California-Nevada Regional Director

Sierra Club

Walter J. Hickel

Governor, State of Alaska

Carlos Madrid

District Chief

Department of Water Resources

Southern District

Dean E. Mann

Former Head, Social Science Division

National Water Commission

James Noyes

Deputy Director

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

Christine E. Reed

Director, Metropolitan Water District (representing

Santa Monica)

William C. Samples

Project Manager

Los Angeles District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Nathan W. Snyder

Technical Director

Ralph M. Parsons Co.

Glenn S. Tarbox

Vice President

Manager, Water Resources

Bechtel Corp.

Additional Contributors

Don L. Adams

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Marilyn Arnold

Environment and Energy Study Institute

Deborah Braver

California Department of Water Resources

Thomas J. Cassidy

American Rivers

Warren J. Cole

California Department of Water Resources

Ed Godlewski

Fluor Daniel

Tom Graff

Environmental Defense Fund

Gary Gustafson

Division of State Lands, Oregon

Helen M. Ingram

University of Arizona

Bill McQueen

BC Hydro

Brian Smith

California Department of Water Resources

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants and other contributors.

The workshop participants and other contributors do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA

assumes full responsibility for the background paper and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff—Alaskan Water for California?

The Subsea Pipeline Option

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Project Staff

William E. Westermeyer, Project Director

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil, Office Administrator

Sally Van Aller, Administrative Secretary

Contents

Page

INTR0DUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ALASKA WATER AVAILABILITY .. , . .. .. .. . ... ... .., , ,. ... ., ,. * . 4

CALIFORNIA’S PROJECTED WATER DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

MEETING FUTURE NEEDS FOR WATER ● **. . *...*..,**......., ,** *.*....****,** 6

Water Marketing **. *. ***. ... ... ... ***. .. . . . * * * . . . * . . * . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * *.**....* 7

Wastewater Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conventional Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘7

Canal Lining **. *.. ... *.. ... *.. ... ..* ..**......*..........**....*..*..*..**...***.*.. 7

Conjunctive Use of Groundwater and Surface Water ● * . . . . . * . . . . . . . . * . . * . * * . . * . **,.*.... 7

Water Banking .*. ..*. ... ... ... .*. *.. . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . * . . . . * . . * * * * * . . .**....** 7

System Interconnections ... **. ... ... ... *.*. .**. ... **. ..*. *.. **. ..** . .*. ... * ****.** 8

Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Water Import by Tanker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

The Subsea Pipeline Option ... ... ... ***. ... ... ***. ... *.. ... ... ..** *.. ... ****..*..**.* 8

CONCLUSIONS **. ... ... ... ... ... ... .*. ..*. ..** ... *.. ... **. .*. ... .**. ..** *.** ... * *** 9
Approximate Route of Proposed Alaska-California Pipeline

*.-U- “ o

.

) Shasta Lake 

6 Francisco \

k“)Los

● Angeles

SOURCE: Fluor Daniel.

vi
Alaskan Water for California?

The Subsea Pipeline Option

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, few issues in California have

evoked more passion and debate than water issues.

The continued vitality of California’s major cities, as

well as the vitality of its agricultural sector, depends

on having an adequate and reliable water supply,

The people of southern California, in particular,

must import a significant proportion of the water

they use. It is not surprising that the current

California drought has accentuated the concern of

many people in the State about the future adequacy

of California’s water supplies. Three major factors

contribute to the importance of planning for the

State’s future water demands: a projected continuing

high rate of population growth, the impending loss

to Arizona of some water that California currently

receives from the Colorado River, and a greater

appreciation in recent years of the need to ensure that

sufficient water is allocated to wildlife and other

environmental purposes.

Congressmen Edward Roybal and George E.

Brown, Jr. of California and Don Young of Alaska

recently asked the Office of Technology Assessment

to undertake a brief investigation of one option for

ensuring that California will continue to have

adequate supplies of water for its future demands—

that of importing water from Alaska by means of a

subsea pipeline. The idea for such a pipeline initially

came from Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska. To

help carry out its assignment, OTA organized a

workshop in Los Angeles, California. The workshop

was held on August 14, 1991 and included representatives from the California Department of Water

Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California, Los Angeles County Department of

Public Works, Western States Water Council, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, and

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. Experts

from major engineering firms, environmental

groups, and academia also participated. The Governor of Alaska made a presentation on the pipeline,

and the Chairman of the House Resources Committee of the Alaska State Legislature was present.

Building an underwater pipeline from Alaska to

California would be one of the most complex and

costly engineering projects ever attempted, rivaling

(or surpassing) in scope the building of the Panama

Canal, the Trans Alaska Pipeline, or the Channel

Tunnel. Depending on where the pipeline started and

ended (several possibilities have been identified), it

would be between 1,400 and 2,100 miles long. Some

have suggested that it be built to carry 4 million

acre-feet of water annually.l Before a decision could

be made to build such a pipeline, a number of

considerations would have to be thoroughly investigated. Engineering feasibility and cost are important

considerations, though by no means the only important ones. Also important to evaluate would be:

1. the future needs for water in California;

2. how much Alaskan water could be available

and the willingness of Alaskans to export it;

3. alternatives for supplying additional water to

California, including the relative costs of such

alternatives;

4. alternatives for reducing demand for water and

for better managing existing supplies;

5. the environmental impacts associated with

removing water from Alaska, with the pipeline

itself, and possibly with the accelerated growth

the increased supply of water to southern

California could stimulate;

6. legal, political, and institutional issues;

7. financing options; and, last but encompassing

all of the above,

8. long-range policy addressing California’s water

needs and related growth problems.

Politics will, without question, continue to play an

important role in all California water issues. Some of

the above considerations are addressed in more

detail below.

lone a~e-foot M@S 325,851 g~ons, the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. An acre-foot Of Water iS enough to susti

two average households for a year.

–l–
2 ● Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option

ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY

AND COST

No detailed engineering feasibility and cost study

of the Alaska to California pipeline concept has yet

been undertaken. Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska,

a proponent of transferring some of his State’s water

to California, spoke in general terms about one

concept for the pipeline at the OTA Los Angeles

workshop. The Governor envisions a coastal subsea

aqueduct beginning in southeast Alaska and extending approximately 1,400 miles to northern California. At that point the aqueduct would be routed

inland to Lake Shasta, where the water would enter

the State’s distribution system. As currently envisioned, the pipeline would tap one or more of the

rivers in southeast Alaska and divert approximately

4 million acre-feet of water annually. Most frequently mentioned to date have been the Stikine and

Copper Rivers, although the governor notes that few

data are currently available concerning the water

resources of any of the region’s rivers. Nevertheless,

the proposed amount to be diverted would represent

only a small fraction of the outflow of the area’s

rivers. In the Governor’s concept, water would be

diverted into the pipeline only at the mouth of a river,

thus potentially minimizing environmental effects

and avoiding the extra costs of building dams. To

minimize construction costs, the Governor hopes

that builders would be able to take advantage of

advances in pipeline materials and innovative manufacturing techniques.

Although no detailed work on the Alaska-toCalifornia pipeline concept has been done, some

cursory work on engineering feasibility and cost has

been performed by the Fluor Daniel Corp. At the

request of the County of Los Angeles, but at no cost

to the County, Fluor Daniel recently prepared an

order-of-magnitude cast estimate.2 The Fluor Daniel

concept is modeled after the general scheme proposed by Governor Hickel, and is based on the use

of proven technologies. The Fluor Daniel pipeline

would consist of four 14-foot diameter steel and

concrete subsea aqueducts. Land-based pumping

stations to increase water head are envisioned at

approximately 150-mile intervals. Other facilities

would include intake and conditioning facilities in

Alaska, and fuel handling, utilities, communications, maintenance and repair, and control facilities

along the route.

Fluor estimated that a 2,000-mile version of its

pipeline would cost on the order of $150 billion,

exclusive of project financing costs, operating and

maintenance costs, and taxes. A pro rata estimate for

the cost of a shorter 1,400-mile pipeline would thus

be roughly$110 billion. Costs per acre-foot of waste

would be between $3,000 and $4,000. The Fluor

Daniel analysis is preliminary, and Fluor has offered

no detailed technical assumptions that could be used

by OTA to evaluate its estimate. Several firms

represented at the workshop noted that, in their view,

the estimate was of the right order of magnitude. The

ultimate cost of a pipeline could change considerably from the Fluor Daniel estimate. Many major

engineering projects cost more than their original

estimates. 3 One illustration is the Trans Alaska

Pipeline. However, the use of another design or of

different materials, as is advocated by some engineers, could potentially reduce the cost. Some

participants at the workshop speculated that cost

reductions to one-fourth of the estimate are possible.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of

Reclamation has done the most extensive analysis of

the possibility of supplying large quantities of water

to southern California by subsea pipeline. In 1975

the Bureau studied the feasibility of building a large

undersea pipeline-the California Undersea Aqueduct—to transport 4 million acre-feet of water

annually from the Klamath and Eel Rivers in

northern California to various points in southern

California. The study is now dated, but the concept

evaluated still has relevance for the proposed

Alaska-to-California pipeline. The Bureau’s design

called for an 800-mile undersea aqueduct consisting

of 599 miles of fiber-reinforced plastic buoyant

conduit, 122 miles of buried or partly buried

concrete or steel pipe, 53 miles of undersea tunnels,

37 access chambers, 20 geological fault crossings,

and 11 land-based pumping plants with forebay

reservoirs. 4 The study was termed a reconnaissance

2Fluor Daniel Corp., “Alaska Water Pipeline Feasibility Study,” presented to County of Ims Angeles, August 1991.

3see, for exmple, E-w. Me=ow, s-w. Chpel, and C. J$Io-g, A Review Of cost Esti~tiOn in New Technologies (Santa Monica, CA: The R~d

Corp., 1979).

4U.S0 Dep~~entof~e~tefior,B~eau of Re~l~ation, Ca/yornia Undersea AqueductReconnaissance ]nvesfigatim, Special report, January 1975,

pp. 14-15.
Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option ● 3

investigation and was originally planned to be

carried out in two phases lasting a total of 5.5 years

and costing about $6.6 million (1991 dollars).5

Phase 1 of the study consisted of the elaboration of

a general plan and of basic route mapping, hydrodynamics, and marine geology studies to provide data

for determiningg the engineering feasibility of the

project. Phase 2 was to consist of engineering

studies, designs and cost estimates, economic analyses, evaluation of alternative projects, and preparation of a final report. This second phase was not

completed, in part due to more optimistic projections about future California water requirements that

became available while the study was underway.

A representative of the Bureau of Reclamation

reviewed the Bureau’s 1975 California Undersea

Aqueduct study at the OTA workshop and discussed

issues relevant to the current proposal to build an

Alaska-to-California pipeline. One important observation made during this discussion was that a system

to deliver water by subsea pipeline would be much

more than just an undersea pipe: it would be a

complex system that would probably require both

subsea and shore-based components. For example,

the Bureau’s 1975 study noted that about 9 million

acre-feet of storage on land in up to six new

reservoirs would be desirable along the Aqueduct

route so that constant flow could be maintained

seasonally and through dry periods and so the

pipeline size could be minimized.b Since seasonal

variation of the outflow of Alaska’s rivers is high, in

part due to the fact that during the winter much water

is stored in the form of snow in upland areas, storage

reservoirs might be needed near the Alaska diversion

site(s) and possibly elsewhere along the route. The

Fluor Daniel cost estimates have not taken this

possible need into account. The environmental

impacts of the project would be much greater if new

storage facilities were required.

Another important and still relevant point made

by the Bureau’s study is that building a pipeline on

the continental shelf adjacent to the West Coast of

North America would be a much more difficult and

expensive task than building a similar pipeline on

land. The ocean is a hostile environment, and

proposed pipeline routes have not been wellcharacterized for engineering purposes. The Bureau

did some preliminary investigations of such problems to be faced as crossing submarine canyons

(e.g., the Monterey Canyon, which is as large as the

Grand Canyon), coping with faulting and seismicity,

and dealing with wave action in shallow areas,

liquefaction of sediments, and turbidity currents.

The Bureau noted that any future planning would

require extensive research in all phases of oceanography, including marine biology and ecology, hydrodynamics, marine soils, marine geology, and materials.7

The Bureau of Reclamation estimated that construction costs for its 800-mile undersea aqueduct

would be about $60 billion (updated to 1991 prices),

not including costs for rights-of-way, interest during

construction, or water distribution en route.8 Doubling this figure to derive a very rough estimate of

the cost of a pipeline twice as long, i.e., one

comparable in length to the pipeline proposed by

Governor Hickel, yields a cost that is essentially the

same (given the enormous uncertainty attached to

both estimates) as the cost estimated by the Fluor

Daniel Corp. for its Alaska pipeline concept. The

Bureau also calculated that the cost to build an

onshore pipeline to transfer Klamath and Eel River

water to southern California would be about half that

of an offshore one.

It is important to emphasize that the ultimate cost

of the pipeline is not known with any degree of

certainty. The Bureau of Reclamation estimate is

dated and, although the California Undersea Aqueduct is similar to the Alaska-to-California concept,

it is not the same. Moreover, the Fluor Daniel

estimate assumes the use of traditional concrete and

steel pipeline materials. The most appropriate materials for the proposed pipeline have not been

determined. Some engineers (in particular, several

observers at OTA’s Los Angeles workshop) believe

that significant savings might be obtained by using

newer composite materials and/or manufacturing

techniques. General agreement could not be reached

on this point at the workshop. In many cases new

materials and techniques cost significantly more

than conventional approaches. One engineer contended that technological breakthroughs that could

5

Ibid., pp. 5-6.

6

Ibid., p. 13.

7

Ibid., p. ii.

‘Ibid. pp. 117-119.

307-403 0 - 91 - 2 QL 3
4 ● Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option

result in significant savings in the future were not

likely. Conversely, another contended that, using

nontraditional materials, the cost of the pipeline

could be dramatically reduced. In the absence of a

sound, well-documented feasibility study, a reasonably accurate pipeline cost cannot be determined.

A much more detailed study would be required to

determine the cost of building an undersea pipeline

to within a reasonable degree of accuracy, and this

would be a major and expensive undertaking in

itself. To illustrate, the Panama Canal Alternatives

Feasibility Study (a study to determine the cost of a

new canal) was initially planned as a 5-year $20

million effort. It now appears that the study will cost

between $30 and $35 million. Similarly, but perhaps

more relevantly, the original feasibility and preliminary design studies for the 800-mile Trans Alaska

Pipeline System (TAPS) cost about $450 million (in

1991 dollars).9

Several factors could make a feasibility study of

the proposed water pipeline more complex than

studies of TAPS:

●

●

●

●

●

the offshore pipeline would cross major fault

zones and submarine canyons and be subject to

marine hazards not encountered on land,

few offshore areas between southeast Alaska

and northern California have been studied well,

the pipeline would be about twice as long and

carry roughly 45 times the volume of TAPS,

the pipeline would pass through the coastal

waters of four States and one foreign country,

and

public concerns about protecting the environment have increased considerably in the last

two decades.

Any new designs and/or materials that might be

used would need to be thoroughly tested for durability, fracture characteristics, corrosion-resistance,

marine fouling, etc. before a full-scale commitment

to their use could be made. The optimal pipe size and

numbers would need to be determined. It is also

likely that some new construction techniques would

be needed. Acquisition of oceanographic data needed

for reasonable design, as well as testing of new

materials, could take a decade or more. Options,

such as basing pumping stations on the seafloor may

be feasible, but the technical feasibility and costs of

this concept have not been adequately investigated.

ALASKA WATER AVAILABILITY

There is no question that Alaska has an abundance

of fresh water. However, it is less obvious how

much, if any, of this water might be available for

export. The State of Alaska has not conducted a

comprehensive evaluation of water availability, but

a few preliminary observations can be made.

It is conceivable that the northern end of a water

pipeline could be as far north as Prince William

Sound (where it has been roughly estimated that

more fresh water is available than is carried by the

Mississippi River), but a pipeline originating in

southeast Alaska would be about 700 miles shorter

and thus far more desirable economically. Many

small rivers empty into the sea in southeast Alaska,

but these have not been studied for their water

resource potential or for the potential adverse

impacts of diverting water from them.

Two sizable rivers that might support the volume

of water exports proposed are the Copper and the

Stikine. The Copper River enters the Gulf of Alaska

just to the east of Prince William Sound. A pipeline

originating at this point would be about 2,100 miles

long. The Stikine River enters the sea near Wrangell,

Alaska, some 700 miles further south, after flowing

through the State for about 20 miles. Most of the

river, however, lies in Canada, and thus its diversion

could concern the Canadian Government. Of particular concern to Canada would be any effects of

diversions on navigation of the river (the freedom of

which was guaranteed by Article 26 of the Treaty of

Washington, 1871) and any effects on fisheries

(sockeye and chinook salmon are fished by both

Canadian and American fishermen on the Stikine).10

Also, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

has been studying the potential of building several

hydroelectric dams on the river. Although “BC

Hydro’ has no plans to divert any of the water, the

presence of a dam would change the flow regime and

affect the design of any subsea pipeline tapping the

river.

%larnie Isaacs, Aleyeska Pipeline Co., personal communication, June 21, 1990.

lwiltiMcQuee@ solicitor for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, personal commmicatio% Aug. 27, 191.
Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option ● 5

The total amount of water available for export

may be much less than that which actually enters the

ocean. Before potential excess amounts can be

determined, needs for other uses must be considered.

The fishing industry is one of the most important in

Alaska. The State’s many streams support numerous

species of fish important to the State’s commercial

and recreational fishing industries.ll Virtually every

stream and river in the State is used by fish for

spawning, incubation, rearing, or migration or is

habitat for wildlife. Only that water in excess of

in-stream flow requirements for fish and wildlife is

likely to be considered for export. A bill being

considered by the Alaska State Legislature seeks to

ensure this.12 Although unproven, another consideration is the possibility that diversion of fresh water

to the south may affect the Alaska Coastal Current

and/or the temperature and salinity of the area’s

seawater, which in turn may affect marine life such

as migrating salmon.13 Whether the amount of

diverted water would be sufficient to cause significant environmental impacts on freshwater or marine

ecosystems is not known; however, it is an important

question that would need to be answered as part of a

pipeline feasibility analysis. Such concerns, whether

those of Alaskans or of Canadians or others potentially affected, underscore the need for a thorough

evaluation of possible problems associated with the

diversion of large quantities of water.

It is worth noting that technically the State does

not now have the authority to sell water.14 This legal

detail could be remedied by the Alaska legislature.

However, opposition to exporting water could develop among fishing and environmental interests in

the State. Although the Governor of Alaska is a

strong supporter of the pipeline idea, the Alaska

legislature has neither supported nor rejected it, and,

in general the issue has not been widely discussed.

CALIFORNIA’S PROJECTED

WATER DEMAND

One of the most important factors on which

construction of a subsea pipeline from Alaska (or

implementation of other water import options) will

depend is the future demand for water. The State and

regional water professionals invited to OTA’s workshop, as well as other water experts with whom OTA

has spoken, believe that for the foreseeable future

they will be able to “develop” adequate supplies of

water to meet the State’s demands from sources

existing within the State. In the next decade alone,

the State Department of Water Resources expects to

be able to develop 1 million acre-feet of water.15

Drought and continued population growthl6 are or

will stress the ability of the State to manage water,

but such stresses have given rise to some creative

thinking and have made options that may previously

have appeared too expensive or otherwise unnecessary more feasible now.

In terms of absolute supplies, California still has

an abundance of water. Thus, even after evaporation

and transpiration by native trees, brush, and other

vegetation is taken into account, 71 million acre-feet

of surface water drains from the land in an average

year (an additional 6 million acre-feet is contributed

by Oregon streams and the Colorado River). It will

not be possible to develop all theoretically available

supplies for urban or agricultural needs. Nevertheless, untapped but potentially usable sources of

water exist in the State. Rather than lack of water (in

average years), the problem and the challenge for

California seems to be transporting the available

water in the State to where it is most needed,

allocating available supplies among competing users

(i.e., between agriculture and urban uses), and using

water more efficiently. Political, economic, environllMq Lu H~le, C ‘Appropriation of ~~e~ F1OWS in Ali&~>’ in L.J. McDonnell, T.A. Rice, and S.J. Shupe (eds.), Znstream FZOW PWeCtbn 2%

the West, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 1989.

lzHouse Biu No. 355, introduced by representative Cliff Davidso% my21, 1991.

lqTom Royer , u~vemi~ of fishFfiba&, Wrso~ communi~tio~ July 1, 1991. S= ~so “Hickel’s Proposed Water pipeline Cotdd UpSet

Ecosystem” The Anchorage Times, Sunday, July 9, 1991, p. B3.

IL@W Gus~so~ fomer D~ctor, Division of ~d and Water M~gemen~ Alaska Dep~ent of Na~~ Resources, pmsoti COllUllUllkXtiO~

June 20, 1991.

15cmlo5 ~~&DiS~ct ~ef, c~ifor~ Dep~ent of Water Reso~ces, s~tement at ()~ workshop, IXJ,S Angeles, CA, Aug. 14, 1991.

16~ 198’7, he c~ofia Dep~ment of Water ResoWces es~ted tit c~i,forfiwo~d ~ve a population of 36.3 tiion pmpk t)y 2010” (Up fKXU

26 million in 1985). It now appears possible that the State’s population will reach this number by the turn of the century. Most of this population growth

will takeplaceinurban centers, which currenflyaccount for about 17 percent of the State’s water use. State of California, Department of Water Resources,

California Water: Looking to tfie Future, Bulletin 160-87, November 1987, p. 6.
6 . Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option

mental, and demographic considerations combine to

complicate development of acceptable water policy.

In 1987 the State Department of Water Resources

projected that net State water use by 2010 would be

35.6 million acre-feet annually (it was 34.2 million

in 1985). Further, the State estimated that all but 0.4

million acre-feet of the projected amount needed

could be supplied by 2010 by already identified

sources.

17A number of supply-enhancing and demandreducing options are under development and/or

investigation to ensure that the projected demand is

satisfied in 2010 and beyond. To date, water imports

from outside the State have not figured in the

planning process (nor have transfers from untapped

rivers in northern California). Similarly, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)

estimated in 1990 that the total of existing and

potential supplies (potential supplies include certain

projects underway to reduce projected shortages) in

average years to its southern California users would

exceed demand in 2010 by about 1 percent, or 0.38

million acre-feet.18 For drought years, projections

indicate that demand could exceed supply in southern California by from 0.08 to 0.41 million acre-feet

per year.

19 As is the case at the State level, many

options are now being considered to increase the

amount of water available. MWD believes that there

are sufficient resources within California to meet its

future water needs. Whether future needs are met

will depend in part on statewide cooperation.20

Estimating California’s future water needs is no

simple task: estimates entail many assumptions,

including for example, future prices for water, the

amount of acreage that will be devoted to agriculture, what kinds of crops will be grown, how much

water will be required to maintain water quality and

to provide for wildlife and recreation needs, what the

future population of the State will be, and how

important conservation measures will be. Agriculture accounts for over 80 percent of the total amount

of water used in California. Agricultural water use

projections assume that a certain amount of acreage

will be devoted to growing a particular crop (e.g.,

cotton). It is essential to understand that changes in

agricultural practices (e.g., in the amounts or types

of crops grown or methods of irrigation) could

greatly reduce the future amount of water needed.

Although urban water use makes up only about 17

percent of California’s water demand, the population of California’s cities is expected to continue

growing. In this sector also, more attention to water

conservation could lower estimates of future needs.

MEETING FUTURE NEEDS

FOR WATER

As the above suggests, California will need to

continue developing its water resources and/or will

need to use existing supplies differently if current

growth continues as expected-especially if the

State is to be prepared in the future for increased

demand in drought years. A number of different

options have been identified by State and local water

authorities, some of which are currently being

implemented. Some of these include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

‘‘water marketing, ’

waste water reclamation,

water conservation,

conventional reservoir development,

canal lining,

conjunctive use of ground water and surface

water,

water banking,

system interconnections,

desalination, and

tanker imports.21

OTA has not conducted a detailed analysis of the

ultimate potential of these options or of their costs.

However, a few observations about some of these

options underscores the belief of many State water

authorities that California will be able to meet its

future water demands without resorting to largescale interbasin transfers of water.

171bid., p. 41.

lsrbid. See especially ch. 5, “Meeting Future Needs for Water.”See also Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, The Regional Urban

Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November 1990.

l~e 1OWW fiWe is b~ed on nomde~d, the higher on above-normal demand. Abovenormal demands res~t from higher-~-average

temperatures and lower-than-average rainfall. Demands may be lower during severe droughts due to implementation of short-term water conservation

and increased public awareness.

%on Adams, Director of Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, personal communicatio~ June 25, 1991.

21S~te of c~ifo~, @~ent of Water RMomces, op. ~it., p. 39. See ~so “Approfiate Water Cost comp~so~”do~ent prepared for OTA

workshop by Metropolitan Water District of Southern CalifomiZ July 17, 1991.
Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option ● 7

Water Marketing

Water marketing refers to the sale of water or

water rights from one user to another. Water

marketing would tend to shift water use from

agricultural to urban areas, i.e., to areas with greater

purchasing power. The seller would benefit by

making a profit on the water sold, the buyer by

obtaining additional supplies, possibly at lower rates

than for other supply options. There appears to be

significant potential for water marketing, if legal and

institutional barriers can be removed. The creation

of water markets will promote efficiency, but

potential third-party impacts of all transfers will also

have to be taken into account.

Waste water Reclamation

There appears to be significant additional potential for reclaiming, treating, and reusing low-quality

water that would otherwise be disposed of. Reclaimed water can be used in such applications as

irrigation, industrial cooling, landscape watering,

and toilet flushing. The high-quality water now

being used for such purposes could be shifted to

potable uses. Investigators are also looking into the

potential for using advanced treatment methods to

reclaim water for drinking. Groundwater replenishment is one of the most efficient uses of reclaimed

water, allowing large amounts of wastewater to be

reused at a relatively modest cost. The Department

of Water Resources notes that statewide use of

reclaimed water could reach 500,000 acre-feet per

year by 2010.22

Conservation

There is considerable potential in both the urban

and agricultural sectors in California for using water

more efficiently. Conservation can be promoted by

technological means; through pricing and regulations; and through public education. Urban areas

may use water more efficiently, for example, by

retrofitting toilets with ultra-low-volume models or

by charging higher rates as more water is used.

Conservation options in the agricultural sector may

be even more important, given the much larger

amount of water that is used to grow crops and the

highly subsidized rates charged to farmers. Technical options to respond to higher water prices include

using more efficient irrigation methods, controlling

seepage, reducing evaporation, and managing vegetation in and near surface water.

Conventional Reservoirs

There are few opportunities for building new

reservoirs within the State. One, the Los Banes

Grandes, has been proposed for development in

central California. The reservoir would be used to

store excess water pumped south from the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta through the California Aqueduct

during wet months. It would probably be designed to

store about 1.75 million acre-feet of water, which

could be used when needed. This capacity would

make available about 250,000 extra acre-feet of

dependable supply. MWD estimates this could be

accomplished at a cost per acre-foot of $300 to $400.

Another option being considered is the enlargement

of Shasta Reservoir.

Canal Lining

Some water is lost by leakage through unlined

canals, so lining canals would enable water savings.

The Metropolitan Water District hopes that by

paying for the lining of 68 miles of the All-American

and Coachella Canals in the Imperial Valley, it can

conserve at least 100,000 acre-feet of agricultural

water annually, which would then be available to

urban areas. MWD estimates it can accomplish the

lining of these two canals for about $175 per

acre-foot per year.

Conjunctive Use of Groundwater

and Surface Water

One proposal under consideration, for example,

would be to allow southern California to use some

surface water from the Sacramento Valley in

drought years. To replace this water in the Sacramento area, local groundwater would be pumped.

Sacramento Valley groundwater basins would be

recharged naturally in wet years, when southern

California would not need the additional surface

water.

Water Banking

As a result of excess capacity in some groundwater basins, e.g., the Kern Basin, surplus water in

wet years may be stored for use during dry years.

Thus, in wet years, surplus water from the Delta, for

example, can be pumped to the Kern Basin for

~s~te of Cahfornia, op. cit., footnote 16, p. 54.
8 ● Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option

storage. In drought periods the “banked’ water can

be pumped out again and used as necessary. The

Metropolitan Water District estimates that water

from the California Water Bank costs about $315 per

acre-foot delivered to southern California.

System Interconnections

A more complete linking of the various components of the State aqueduct system would make

possible a high degree of water sharing between

agencies. The goal of such linkages, like that of

conjunctive use, is to make storage and surplus

supplies available to water-short regions of the State

and thus defer construction involving more costly

sources.

Desalination

There is potential for desalination in California,

but while less costly than the Alaska pipeline option,

it is still a very expensive water supply alternative.

More and more coastal cities are giving it serious

consideration. Santa Barbara, for example, has

recently decided to build a $40 million desalination

plant to provide 7,500 acre-feet of water per year to

the city. The costs per acre-foot for this water are

estimated to be approximately $1,400, if capital

costs are amortized over 20 years.23 Some more

current estimates suggest that large-scale desalination may soon be possible for less than this amount.

Desalination of brackish water, for which there is

much potential, may be possible for about $500 per

acre-foot, according to the MWD. Desalination

drawbacks include intensive use of energy and the

need to dispose the brine produced.

Water Import by Tanker

Several California coastal cities have considered

importing water by tanker. Costs, like those for

pipelines, would vary depending on distance traveled and quantity of water transported. An entrepreneur, Sun Belt Water, Inc., has estimated that

costs would be in the range of $1,500 to $2,000 per

acre-foot for long-term contracts of 30,000 acre-feet

or more.

24 Smaller quantities would be much more

expensive. Rather than use tankers, some have

suggested that large nylon fabric bags could be filled

with water and towed by tug to southern California.

A Canadian company has calculated that this would

be much less expensive than tankering, although

OTA is unaware of any independent analysis of this

concept. 25 Both tankering and desalination options

have the advantage over a pipeline that the building

and/or operation of facilities can be adjusted to

closely match water supply with demand, i.e., by

increasing or decreasing the number of tankers or by

either adding desalination capacity or shutting down

a desalination plant.

The Subsea Pipeline Option

As noted above, if one uses Fluor Daniel’s very

rough estimates for the Alaska-to-California subsea

pipeline, the cost per acre-foot for water delivered to

Lake Shasta would be between $3,000 and $4,000,

depending on pipeline length. At these costs, the

water delivered by this pipeline would be much

more expensive than any of the other options

currently being considered or implemented by State

and regional water authorities or being promoted by

various entrepreneurs. Many options for developing

additional supplies are still available in the $300 to

$500 per acre-foot range. Moreover, highly subsidized water is still available to some of the State’s

farmers for a fraction of the cost to supply it

(sometimes below $lOper acre-foot, and such prices

have not changed in 40 years). Some changes to

water contracts that could affect water demand seem

likely in the future.26 The comparable current MWD

wholesale price for treated water is $261 per

acre-foot.27

If the cost of the subsea pipeline could be reduced

by 50 to 75 percent from the Fluor Daniel estimate,

the water it would deliver would still be very

expensive, but might be competitive with other

currently expensive options (e.g., other interregional

transfer proposals and desalination). If such reductions were technically possible, factors other than

cost will become increasingly important, and the

~~etMiuer, Civ Comcil Mefier, City of Santa Barbar~ Testimony before the Semte Envirorunent and Public Works COmdtee on S.481,

the Water Resesrch Act of 1991, July 23, 1991.

~Rich Shder, Sun Belt Water, Inc., personal cornrnunicatiow%@. 18, 1991.

~J~ cram Medusa cow+, c~gW, c~ad~ per50~ com~cation, Au~st 1$)91. Suchbags m@t be capable of carrying 1,6(K) acre-feetof water.

MS=, for ex~ple,HR 2684, the “Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1991.” This bill was introduced June 19, 1991 by

Representative George Miller of California. Title XXV addresses the cost of subsidized agricultural water.

zT’rhe average retail price paid by southern Californians is about $5(M) per aCre-fOOt.
Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option ● 9

subsea pipeline would have to be compared to other

options on that basis. It has been suggested that,

under those circumstances, a subsea pipeline may

have some advantages (e.g., possibly fewer environmental impacts than a land pipeline). Such comparison studies have not been done. Also to be considered is that costs for desalination and other options

could likewise be reduced through irnprovements in

technology, allowing them to remain the less expensive options. It does not appear that pipeline water

will ever be able to compete with the more easily

implemented supply-enhancing and demandreducing options now being planned.

Engineers at OTA’s workshop and other engineers OTA contacted believe that an Alaska-toCalifornia subsea water pipeline could be built if

enough time and money were devoted to conceptual

studies, surveys, and engineering development. A

predominant view at the workshop, however, was

that engineers do not yet have sufficient experience

with newer pipeline materials for this type of

application. If a large subsea pipeline were to be

built today, it would probably be built using more

traditional concrete and steel pipeline materials. The

use of new materials, such as plastics and fiberglass

composite materials, may eventually help lower the

cost of the pipeline (although this has not been

established-costs could be greater). Without sufficient testing of such materials, no one would be

willing to commit the large sums of money that

would be required. More experience will likely be

gained in the next several decades with materials

that could lower the cost of a subsea pipeline.

Building other, shorter pipelines with such materials

would provide some experience. Several OTA

workshop participants suggested that a pilot project

be undertaken specifically to test the subsea aqueduct concept and identify any modifications or

improvements in technology that are needed. Such

a project might be undertaken as a joint effort of

private industry and State and Federal Governments.

Also, before a practical engineering design could

be adopted, much more oceanographic and geotechnical data would be required along the proposed

route. This data would take years to gather. Likewise, data are also lacking about Alaska’s water

resources and of the potential environmental impacts of diverting large quantities of water from

Alaska.

The phrase “policy before plumbing,” suggested

by one workshop participant, seems to summarize

well the most pressing need for California as the

State addresses its water problems. With regard

specifically to the subsea pipeline option, workshop

participants noted a whole range of legal, regulatory,

political, and environmental issues that would have

to be resolved before a pipeline could be built. The

routing of the pipeline, for example, would be of

concern to coastal cities and counties, the California

Coastal Commission, the Department of the Interior,

the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and

others, all of whom claim some special competence

to review proposals and/or jurisdiction over parts of

the seabed or overlying water. Similarly, the routing

of pipeline water into State Water Project facilities

at Lake Shasta raises management questions that

would involve water users throughout the State,

implying the need to carefully evaluate allocation of

costs of the pipeline and benefits and costs to users

Statewide.

Changes in State and Federal laws regarding the

use of Alaskan water would also be required. Such

changes could be strongly resisted. Environmentalists in both Alaska and California, as well as those

in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, are

likely to be opposed to an offshore pipeline-even

if the direct environmental impacts of a subsea

aqueduct might be less severe than impacts from an

onshore pipeline. (Environmentalists appear quite

concerned that bringing massive new amounts of

water to southern California might trigger further

growth and, hence, greater environmental deterioration.) At present, there is little reason to believe that

the transfer of water from Alaska to California will

be any less contentious than interbasin transfers

from other areas in the West have been.

CONCLUSIONS

Few doubt that California water planners have a

big task ensuring that the State has sufficient water

to meet demand in the years ahead. However, the

unambiguous message communicated at the OTA

workshop by those representing the State Department of Water Resources and the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California, as well as by

a variety of other experts polled by OTA, was that

California does not currently need the large volumes

of imported water that could justify a major interbasin transfer such as that represented by the

proposal for a pipeline from Alaska. Moreover, the
10 ● Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option

supply options available to the State (including

wastewater reclamation, water banking, and desalination), the variety of opportunities available to

reduce demand through urban and agricultural water

conservation, and the possibility of reallocating

some supplies from agriculture to the urban sector

(through the creation of water markets and/or other

means) appear adequate to meet California water

demands for the foreseeable future. In addition,

some experts polled by OTA maintain that interregional water transfers can at best only delay the

inevitable reckoning with how to maintain a sustainable society in an inherently arid southern California .

2 8

Despite the large uncertainties about the cost of

water piped from Alaska, there is no doubt that many

of the other options available to California will be

much less expensive than the subsea pipeline option.

Even the more expensive supply options, such as

large-scale desalination, appear to be less expensive

than importing water from Alaska—and a virtually

unlimited supply of ocean water is available for

desalination.

It is difficult to estimate accurately the contribution to the State’s water system of implementing all

the low and moderately priced options, yet the

knowledge gained from undertaking this analysis

would be very useful for planning and decisionmaking purposes.

One important and encouraging recent development in California is the new willingness of

various interest groups to address water issues in a

cooperative, problem-solving spirit. For example,

representatives from urban water agencies, agricultural water agencies, and environmental organizations have recently established the “Three-Way

Water Agreement Process.” In a statement of

principles, the representatives note that the overall

goal of the agreement is to develop a new framework

for California water management that is environmentally sound, economically viable, and broadly

acceptable to environmental, urban, agricultural,

and other interests.29 One important consequence of

this new cooperative spirit could be a resolution of

the longstanding impasse regarding the best way to

use and manage the water flowing through the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Delta improvements

might make available an additional 300,000 acrefeet of dependable water supply .30

Representatives of urban water suppliers, public

advocacy organizations, and other interested groups

have also recently signed a memorandum of understanding regarding urban water conservation in

California. 31 The consensus document identifies a

number of “best management practices” (BMPs)32

intended to reduce long-term urban water demand. It

further specifies implementation goals for these

BMPs and identifies additional potential BMPs

slated for further study and possible incorporation

into the plan. These cooperative activities could

ultimately lead to important improvements in California’s water policy. Moreover, to the degree to

which California’s water supply and demand problems are political in nature, efforts such as this are

likely to go a long way toward resolving them.

Although there is no current or near-term demand

for expensive water from Alaska, the possibility that

such water might eventually be needed cannot be

completely dismissed. No one who participated in

OTA’s workshop claimed to know what California’s

water demands might be 50 years or more from now,

nor the relative costs of the options available at that

time for meeting those demands. Clearly, as demand

increases and as less expensive options are implemented, the more expensive ones become relatively

more attractive. California’s population in 2040 is

likely to be significantly greater than it is now, and

many of the options being considered today may

have largely been implemented.

~office of Technology Assessment Food and Renewable Resources prO~, “Results From the Survey of Western U.S. Water Resources,”

unpublished survey, Aug. 12, 1991.

zg~ciples for the Three-way Water Agreement Process, JUIY 19, 1991.

%%rren Cole, Chief, Statewide Planning Branch Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA, personal communicatio~ Aug. 27, 1991.

31( $Memomndm of Undwstiding Reg~~g Urban Water COIIServation in C~ifOIT@” September 1991. Signatories of the agreement include the

Metropolitan WaterDistrict of Southern California, City and County of San Francisco, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, San Diego County

Water Authority, East Bay Municipal Utility Distric4 Bay Area Water Users Association Southern California Water Committee, Inc., Committee for

Water Policy Consensus, Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Save San Francisco Bay Associatio~

Natural Heritage Institute, kague of Women Voters, Mono Lake Committee, Friends of the River, and the Planning and Conservation bague.

32A Best M~gementfiactice is defm~ as apoficy, progr~ practice, fie, re@atio~ or ormce, or the use of devices, (X@pmen4 Or faCditieS.
Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option ● 11

Global climate change remains an unknown factor

for U.S. water policy. There is some potential, for

example, that increasing global temperatures could

lead to longer and more frequent droughts in the

Southwest, such as the one now being experienced

in California. Also, the future needs of the entire arid

West should be considered, not just those of

southern California. Although the current trend is

away from interregional water transfers, at some

point, then, such schemes could again receive

serious attention. A subsea pipeline to transport

water from Alaska, diverting some water from the

Columbia River, or various proposals for diverting

water from Western Canada’s rivers, as well as other

expensive options such as tankering water, might

then be considered. Moreover, although the Eel and

Klamath Rivers in northern California are now part

of the National Wild and Scenic River System, they

too could be tapped if current law is changed in

response to concerns over global climate change.33

Before large sums are spent on a detailed pipeline

feasibility study (much less committed to building a

subsea pipeline), a sharper picture of future water

demand in California and throughout the West needs

to emerge. It is not clear when, or if, demand for

expensive pipeline water might emerge. The State

needs to better understand all the means available to

meet future water demands, including the relative

costs, benefits, and ultimate potential of each option.

Options as expensive as a subsea pipeline is likely to

be cannot hope to succeed without success at

building a consensus among the many interest

groups likely to be affected. Even now, State

officials are trying to fashion a water policy as part

of an attempt to develop a statewide growth management strategy. Given the emergence of the ThreeWay Water Agreement Process and other cooperative efforts, California appears well on its way to

elaborating a comprehensive water policy for the

State. If Federal or State authorities deem it appropriate to devote more attention specifically to the

subsea pipeline option in the near term, prior to

undertaking an extensive and costly engineering

feasibility study, it would be important to investigate

and sort out the many institutional and policy issues

of significance. It would be especially important to

investigate how these institutional and policy issues

would differ with different engineering designs and

pipeline routes.

330ne ~or~hop p~icipant noted titif Water could & &en from me mou~ of A~~’s rivers without adverse environmentidCOm~UenCeS,them

would be no reason why water could not also be taken from the mouths of northern California rivers.