As much as I would love to mock obama and the greenies on the water consumption, it really isn’t a problem. Water doesn’t just go away or get destroyed.
It is one of the ultimate recyclables and just cycles around and around and around.
If they had to burn energy to desalinate, that would an issue, but if they just pull from rivers or lakes, then big deal. It will evaporate, then rain back down somewhere else.
I get sick of hearing the left talk about “saving water”. If your area is desert or has a lack of water, then conservation is good, but the water doesn’t get destroyed like the terminology the lefties use make it seem.
Much of the area where I live and work DOES tend toward aridity, though that’s not my chief gripe about projects like this.
What bugs me is that we are constantly legislated and regulated toward conservation of water and everything else, regardless of the legitimacy or practicality of such conservation.
Of course all the supposed standards and regs fall by the wayside when a boondoggle project is put forward by the leftists. Then it doesn’t matter how much water or land or wildlife or whatever needs to be sacrificed.
I agree with you about silly scare tactics used in the name of water conservation and so on—some of that goes on in my home areas too. On the other hand, good water IS precious, and it will be more and more a precious commodity (as well as a precious substance), don’t you suppose?
I can think of better uses for it than compulsory diversion to state-sponsored rip-off schemes.
>>Water doesnt just go away or get destroyed.
And, per page 2 of the article, in this case it’s Seawater that doesn’t just go away or get destroyed.