The energy demands and the environmental problems associated with desalanization may be all too real but so is the fallacy of relying on "imported water" in the face of climate crisis. Millions of residents in seven states that depend on the Colorado River — which no longer makes it to sea! — are at risk of losing both water AND power if Mother Nature does not bail us out of what has been called a "mega drought". There are no perfect choices but if Israel, a country of ~9M can make desalinization work, perhaps there's another path forward for California, which out of those seven states is the only state that can desalinate. Because of years of infighting, the farmers who work the bread basket region of California are first on the chopping block, with proposals to buy out their water rights and essentially put them out of business so that we can also rely on "imported food". Since California supplies much of the nation and indeed the world with fruit, vegetables and nuts — the very food products we're supposed to rely on in a future of less livestock farming given the role of meat production to increase C02 levels — it makes very little sense to force them to bear the brunt of water shortages when, at least for their purposes, they are helping to feed the world. Loss of farming in California would cause grocery prices, which are already up significantly due to supply chain breakdown and the high cost of farm inputs such as fertilizer, to go up still further. This, in turn, would require a wealthy country with the capacity for food self-sufficiency to demand more food imports from poor countries and, in view of the war in Ukraine — Europe's bread basket — would represent a dangerous doubling down on the preexisting UN-declared global food crisis. We are faced with tough choices indeed. But unlike much of the Southwest, California could comply with federal government efforts to save the Colorado River IF the environmental lobby, which carries great political influence in California, would look at the totality of the environmental/climate picture. We are fast approaching the day when we have no choice BUT to get our act together. If instead we continue to kick the can down the road, a multi-State REFUGEE CRISIS is all but assured in the event Mother Nature doesn't break the drought within the next 2-3 years. Alas, this is not hyperbole. If water drops much more, power generation at Hoover dam and other electrical-generation sites along the Colorado River will cease. Southwestern states will not only contend with water cuts — which will itself lead to higher water costs for residents — but inability to keep the lights. If at that belated stage we finally choose to act, how much infrastructure for water desalanization or otherwise will we be able to build without reliable electric power. (We are faced with a Perfect Storm on the energy front too given that California has lost access to nuclear power generation in the Southern half of the state faster than the rate solar and wind farms have been built to offset those losses. Therefore there is no way to overstate the world of hurt Americans in "river States" will experience should water levels drop so low in the Colorado River that Hoover dam, among others, can no longer generate electricity.) If this nightmare should come to pass and millions of people are left without reliable power and water because of years of population expansion and "water warfare" (political failure), media will no doubt attempt to save face for embarrassed politicians by attributing all that terrorizes us to climate change. But that would be only part of the story. The balkanization of political-business-conservationists have left the region gridlocked for years — not just with respect to current and future "water security" but ANY form of large-scale infrastructure improvement. It's probably safe to say that MOST voters in "Blue States" such as California sincerely believe that if Republicans take control, nothing whatsoever will be done to mitigate climate change. But I beg to differ not because I am a Republican — I identify as Independent — but because I am a pragmatist and a realist: Democrat leaders, past and present, have been under tremendous pressure NOT to build new reservoirs even though voters approved such measures at the ballot box and, in Gavin Newsom's case, NOT to cut the regulatory red tape that would allow desalinization plants in Huntington Beach, CA and elsewhere in the State to go forward. One can count on the fact that environmental groups and California's notoriously complex regulatory structure — combined with NIMBYism — will derail any and all efforts to mitigate water shortages even though Climate Change all but assures us that the worst will come to pass! To cite a recent example, Gov. Newsom was praised by Left/Right-leaning media alike for supporting the Huntington Beach desalinization project — which was nevertheless derailed on environmental grounds. And therein lies the IRONY above all ironies: With Democrat leaders greatly dependent upon the blessing of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy, making tough but necessary decisions to improve water security unlikely to happen. So no matter how much lip-service Democrats in California and elsewhere give to climate crisis, the reality is that Democrat leaders are gripped by political paralysis. By contrast, would-be Republican leaders don't come into office with the expectation (or the donors behind them) that are known to demand and SUCCEED in getting politicians to back off infrastructure projects (after all, any infrastructure project will create some kind of environmental harm, therefore there is no infrastructure that is GOOD infrastructure if you are a Democrat governor). As such, it would be more likely should Californians elect a Republican governor, providing he/she possesses a genuine understanding of how severe California's water predicament is, that ~40M people who live in States along the Colorado River might spare the future for their children and grandchildren. Alas, voters will continue to elect politicians who are "serious" about climate change without appreciating just how much their hands are tied because doing anything about climate change, particularly when it comes to water and food security, is likely to engender opposition from environmental lobbies. Should this "analysis paralysis" continue, voters who reside in States that draw on the Colorado River elsewhere don't have the California option and will inevitably become resentful of the fact that California leadership refuses to make the hard choices (be a good neighbor). As we speak, the Federal government has quietly forced Southwestern States to cut their water use, citing a "tipping point" on the Colorado River. Tellingly, however, California has thus far remained the ONLY state to remain exempted from these restrictions. Ultimately the federal government has the right to overrule bickering Southwestern States to impose ~30% cuts across the board. What do we think that will do to water prices outside San Diego? As environmentally conscious citizens and voters, it is time to weigh out the consequences of killing the Colorado River alongside the inability to keep our schools, hospitals and Cities going once the taps begin to run dry and/or the Hoover dam can no longer produce electricity. If environmental groups genuinely believe that Climate Change is an existential threat, we can no longer afford to squabble as we did in the 1987-1992 drought — with little accounting for the fact that importing water for still-growing populations in the Southwest is itself unsustainable. Put on your thinking caps and visualize the future: There may come a day when California doesn't even have enough water in reservoirs to spare for the massive "complex" fires that the Sacramento Bee reported killed nearly 20% of Giant Sequoias in 2020 (more have been lost to wildfires since)! Yes, the health of the ocean is important — which is why we should consult and collaborate with Israel and others who have already taken the desalinization path. However, the ONE thing we do not have the option to do is to waste valuable time. A FAILURE TO PLAN for a future marked by prolonged drought is a PLAN TO FAIL. With only 2-3 years left for Mother Nature to break the drought before water levels fall too low to support electrical generation on the Colorado River, it may already be a case of too little, too late. Nonetheless, inability to face reality — which demands compromise among the various stakeholders — is rapidly setting the stage for a day when ~40M people up and down the Colorado River are displaced, forced by the rising costs of scarce water and food to move elsewhere in the country. We face a Sophie's Choice. But we have no choice but to knuckle down and make it.