The following editorial first appeared in the Ketchikan Daily News:
This isn’t the time to shoot down economic development ideas.
Alaska has a $4 billion deficit. The price of oil on which the state depends for the majority of its revenue is low, and the state Legislature is looking at increasing taxes on oil and other industries as well as individual Alaskans.
Alaska should be open to entrepreneurial ideas sparked by enthusiasm no matter how visionary they appear. Undoubtedly, the words “trans-Alaska pipeline” and “unlikely” were used in numerous comments at the point of the oil-pipeline idea’s inception. But Alaska built the line.
Alaska enjoyed prosperous decades, developed its infrastructure, accumulated billions in investments, and provided jobs for its citizens and opportunities for newcomers as a result.
It just took an “unlikely” idea to bring that all about.
That’s why an Alaska businessman’s proposal to sell fresh water to California shouldn’t be automatically dismissed. It’s worth consideration.
Steven Bowhay, owner of River Recycler System, proposes collecting fresh water from the ocean surface in Boca de Quadra, 38 miles southeast of Ketchikan.
The system would require buoys, anchors and sheeting for trapping Pacific Ocean surface water. It would create a reservoir of about 6.2 million square feet.
Bowhay’s plan begins with shipping water via marine vessel, but ultimately he envisions a 100-foot-wide submersible pipeline to California.
Bowhay just needs the approval of an application filed with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to use submerged state land for the system. The application, which was filed in 2012, fell in amongst a backlog.
A water pipeline isn’t a new idea. Former Gov. Wally Hickel entertained the idea in the early 1990s. The line would have spanned 2,000 miles and cost an estimated $110 billion to build over 15 years. It was expected to carry a trillion gallons of water a year.
California has built a $1 billion desalination plant near Carlsbad, California. Bowhay says California would need 100 of the plants to meet Californians’ water demands. That’s about $100 billion.
Perhaps Hickel’s idea would cost less today. And maybe Bowhay’s could be realized for less. Perhaps one or both would be more costly. That’s why the idea should be vetted.
California isn’t the only place craving water. The demand is high. And Alaskans have a vested interest in California farmers being able to get the necessary water; it takes water to grow the fruits and vegetables that find their way to Alaskans.
The water also is cleaner than the oil flowing through the Alaska pipeline. If it spilled, no harm, no foul. Nature wouldn’t be at risk.
One concern for Alaska would be the effect of capturing the water on fisheries. It would be changing the salinity of Alaska’s ocean water, and what effects that would have on the seafood Alaskans harvest for personal and commercial purposes would need to be evaluated.
But entrepreneurs should be encouraged to come up with ideas. Most ideas, according to historical experiences, will fail, but as with the oil pipeline, some great ones will succeed.
Alaska has been built one success at a time.
