No, is the response.
Water from the Pacific Northwest cannot and has not been diverted by President Donald Trump to other states, including California.
There are several reasons why such is simply not feasible, but let’s first examine some of Trump’s most recent remarks.
Trump blamed a shortage of water for the disastrous flames that swept across the Los Angeles area after California officials attempted to save a rare fish species. Experts frequently pointed out that the president was either oversimplifying complex hydrological issues or occasionally incorrect in his opinion.
Nevertheless, the president pressed on, directing the Central California reservoirs to release water. On social media, he declared victory, although the water won’t get to Southern California, which is arid, because the two areas aren’t connected in that manner. Ahead of the summer, when farmers will need the water the most, state officials there were concerned about the discharges.
Trump said on social media, “Under emergency powers, the U.S. military just entered the great state of California and turned on the water flowing abundantly from the Pacific Northwest and beyond.”
That is untrue.
Trump has repeatedly discussed importing water from the Pacific Northwest. The notion has existed for generations and has never really taken off, therefore he didn’t come up with it. For a number of reasons, water management and legal experts say the idea won’t work and should be put in the same category as other unsuccessful environmental plans.
Daniel Rohlf, a professor of environmental law at the College of Lewis and Clark in Portland, described it as simply mind-bogglingly foolish from a factual, economic, legal, and political standpoint.
Here’s why the plan won’t succeed.
The areas are not interconnected.
The most straightforward and evident explanation is this. Water cannot be physically transported to Southern California from the Pacific Northwest. No aqueducts, canals, or pipelines.
If there was a means to transport water from the PNW south, you most likely would have heard about it. Canals that channel Colorado River water into the deserts of central and southern Arizona, such as the 336-mile Central Arizona Project, are extremely costly and contentious. They require years, if not decades, and billions of dollars to construct.
According to Ria Berns, who oversees the Water Resources Program at the Washington State Department of Ecology, there is currently no conveyance from the Pacific Northwest into Southern California. According to her, no one has previously considered or reasonably suggested developing that kind of infrastructure.
We constantly move water, particularly in the Columbia River Basin. It can be directed from a river to our towns, electricity, and irrigation.
There are methods for transferring water back and forth between Oregon and Washington because both states share a border with the Columbia River. However, compared to the 1,000-mile drive into Southern California, these transitions are rather brief. Even so, according to Berns, these transfers typically go from Oregon into Washington rather than the other way around.
According to Rohlf, there is simply no practical way to move water between the two different areas.
No water is left over.
Washington has a shortage of water, even though the Seattle region has recently seen a return of rainfall.
We are currently experiencing a snow drought, which means that we are lacking in the snowpack that builds up over the winter, melts in the spring and early summer, and supplies water throughout the hottest and driest season. According to hydrologists, Washington will face a snow drought for roughly 40% of the upcoming winters as a result of global warming.
State authorities proclaimed a drought emergency last year and the year prior. Officials will soon decide if our lagging snowpack warrants a third drought emergency, even though technically we are still under the emergency that was proclaimed in April of last year.
All things considered, transferring the resource out of state—even if it were technically feasible—is not in the cards because Washington is now short on water.
According to Berns, this indicates that Washington’s water managers are considering the best ways to use the water we have for both the environment and our people. Remember that salmon and other species also require water. They are legally entitled to the resource as well.
Although state authorities in Oregon similarly declared a drought emergency last year, the state’s snowpack is currently in better health.
Legal issues
“It’s all spoken for, even when there’s enough snowpack and enough water flowing through Washington’s rivers and streams,” Berns stated.
According to Berns, Washington water is for Washingtonians.
Washington has a lengthy and intricate water rights system, many of which go back more than a century, just like other Western states. For instance, every drop of usable water along the Columbia River is linked to an existing water right.
Families, farms, and other businesses that depend on the water would be disadvantaged if these rivers and streams were to be dried up. Due to the drought, some of those individuals have already experienced water shortages.
According to Rohlf, there would be numerous more legal issues if these rights were violated, particularly when it came to crossing state lines.
There are no other passengers.
Rohlf stated that it is crucial to remember that none of the states have supported Trump’s proposal.
Nobody in California Gee, nobody is suggesting that we build a pipeline to the Pacific Northwest,” he added.
Berns confirmed that Washington is also not on board. Furthermore, no policymakers in Oregon have seriously suggested any such move, despite the fact that officials there declined to speak for this piece.
Finding local solutions, such as conservation and, some would argue, the construction of new storage reservoirs, is the most economical and effective approach to manage water shortages in a particular area, Rohlf added.
Water from the Pacific Northwest has long been a topic of discussion among public leaders of all sorts. Congress contemplated moving water from the Klamath River south in 1947. Water from even further north, up in Canada, was considered by the North American Water and Power Alliance in the 1950s to be distributed throughout the continent. Kenneth Hahn, a Los Angeles County Supervisor, proposed bringing water from the Columbia River to Southern California in the 1990s. The list is endless.
Billions of dollars have been estimated for each proposal, but one by one, they were rejected as being too costly, hazardous for the environment, politically unstable, or just unfeasible.
Rohlf stated that Trump’s remarks are merely the most recent addition to the lengthy history of proposals that haven’t gained traction.
The Seattle Times, 2025. Check out SeattleTimes.com. Tribune Content Agency, LLC is the distributor.
