THE FEASIBILITY
Big challenges have always required people willing to build.
Generations before us invested in dams, highways, power systems and water infrastructure that served people they would never meet. Our generation faces its own challenge.
HOOVER DAM•INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS•POWER INFRASTRUCTURE
Every generation inherits infrastructure.
Every generation decides what it will leave behind.
Bold doesn't mean reckless. It means being willing to seriously test solutions proportional to the problem.
Put the Idea to the Test →01 — THE TEST
A bold idea still has to survive the numbers.
We're testing the idea—not trying to prove a predetermined answer. Eight questions determine whether the concept deserves to move forward.
ASSUMPTIONS→EVIDENCE→CALCULATIONS→CHALLENGES→CONCLUSIONS
02 — WATER
PROMISING / NEEDS MORE WORKCan we identify enough durable Colorado River relief?
The current portfolio does not pretend the full 3 MAF has already been sourced. It starts with the base case the models test today.
1.75MODELED BASE
→2.50EXPANSION CASE
→3.00STRATEGIC GOAL
We haven't closed the gap.The current base portfolio leaves 1.25 MAF/year unresolved. Even the current illustrative expansion case leaves 0.50 MAF/year to solve.
03 — THE RIVER
MODEL EFFECT SUPPORTEDSee what 3 MAF could change over a decade.
This is a sensitivity model—not a forecast. It assumes the selected amount of net, legally creditable Colorado River relief is actually achieved each year, then compares storage change with and without that relief.
THE EQUATIONAnnual storage change = project relief − underlying deficitThe workbook models deficit cases of 0, 1.5, 3.0 and 4.0 MAF/year.
10-year storage recovery trajectoryNet change from the starting storage position (MAF)
With +3 MAFWithout projectRecovery benchmark
Illustrative planning scenario — not a forecast. The +7.5 MAF line is a model benchmark equal to five years of recovery under the workbook's 1.5 MAF moderate-deficit case.
TRY A 10-YEAR SCENARIO
What should the citizen notice?
3 MAF creates recovery headroom in the model. When the underlying annual deficit is smaller, storage can rebuild faster. Larger deficits can erase some gains, and an extreme deficit can still overwhelm the project.
The result depends on both the relief actually achieved and future basin conditions.
04 — ENERGY
PROMISING / NEEDS MORE WORKCan we power the water—and keep it flowing after sunset?
The concept combines firm nuclear generation, daytime solar, short-duration batteries and several days of product-water storage. Use the controls to see the role each piece plays.
THE KEY IDEAMake more water when power is abundant. Store the product—not an entire night of electricity.Illustrative operating model. It teaches the architecture; it is not a grid dispatch forecast.
A day in the power systemIllustrative available generation profile (GW)
Firm nuclearSolarBattery supportIllustrative water operation
POWER AVAILABLE—
→BATTERY ROLE—
→DESALINATION—
→WATER STORAGE—
→DELIVERYSTEADY
TRY AN OPERATING DAY
TURN A COMPONENT OFF
All four pieces working togetherNuclear supplies firm energy, solar creates a daytime surplus, batteries smooth short transitions, and stored water lets production flex without interrupting delivery.
WHY WATER STORAGE CHANGES THE DESIGN
Electricity has to be balanced every moment. Water doesn't.
When daytime energy is plentiful, desalination can run harder and fill product-water storage. At night, production can slow while stored water continues moving toward customers.
☀DAYMore power
→≋DESALINATIONMake more water
→▰3–7 DAYSStore water
→☾NIGHTKeep delivery steady
DESIGN PRINCIPLESTORE WATER, NOT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY.
Model basis: illustrative 2.2 GW new-nuclear case; 1.5–2.5 GW solar; 1–2 GWh battery storage; 3–7 days product-water storage. Hourly curves are illustrative and are not a forecast of actual grid dispatch, desalination load or future weather.
05 — INFRASTRUCTURE
PROMISING / NEEDS MORE WORKHow would you create 3 MAF of Colorado River relief?
Different pathways can create the same river benefit—but they do not require the same infrastructure, energy or cost. Build a portfolio and watch the tradeoffs.
BUILD YOUR PORTFOLIOAllocate the water we currently believe each pathway could potentially provide.Use + / − or tap the track. Planning-level model; not a project bid.
MEXICO EXCHANGENew water near existing demand
0.50 MAFCALIFORNIA SUBSTITUTIONReplace Colorado River demand locally
0.75 MAFARIZONA DIRECT DELIVERYDesalinate, lift and convey inland
0.50 MAFANNUAL COLORADO RIVER RELIEF1.75 / 3.00 MAF
58% of goal1.25 MAF still to solve
MODELED PROGRAM COST~$3.63B/yrAnnualized planning estimate
AVERAGE COST OF RELIEF~$2,075/AFWeighted across selected pathways
WATER-SYSTEM ENERGY~7.0 TWh/yrCalculated from modeled MWh/AF
THE IDEA TO REMEMBERThe 3 MAF question is not only how much water we can create. It is what combination can create the relief most intelligently.
3.0 MAF ARIZONA-ONLY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Scale the current Arizona assumptions six times.
This is useful for understanding magnitude—not for claiming what a real 3 MAF corridor would cost.
GROSS WATER CAPEX~$96B
ILLUSTRATIVE PROGRAM CAPEX~$76.8B
MODELED PROGRAM COST~$7.3B/yr
WATER ENERGY~16.5 TWh/yr
Illustrative linear-scale comparison only. It is not an engineered 3 MAF Arizona proposal. At that scale, route, pumping, environmental, construction and financing effects would not necessarily scale linearly.
Show the model assumptions
Illustrative expansion case: Mexico 0.75 MAF/year, California 1.00 MAF/year, Arizona direct 0.75 MAF/year — 2.50 MAF/year combined. The remaining 0.50 MAF/year needed to reach the strategic 3 MAF goal is intentionally left unresolved.
Program-cost assumptions: approximately $1,619/AF Mexico, $2,144/AF California and $2,425/AF Arizona direct. Energy assumptions are approximately 4.0, 3.0 and 5.5 MWh/AF respectively. These are planning-level model outputs, not bids or procurement estimates.
06 — ENVIRONMENT
UNRESOLVEDWhat could we improve—and what could we harm?
The current models identify environmental constraints but do not yet quantify them. This is a required feasibility test, not a footnote.
Marine intake, discharge and habitat impacts need site-specific study and mitigation.
Rights-of-way, habitat fragmentation and construction effects remain unengineered.
Potential environmental benefits must be evaluated alongside project impacts.
New nuclear generation requires a dedicated reclaimed-water or hybrid/dry-cooling strategy.
What would make us change course?If impacts cannot be acceptably mitigated, that pathway should be redesigned—or removed.
07 — AGREEMENTS & GOVERNANCE
MAJOR CONSTRAINTEngineering alone cannot create Colorado River relief.
New coastal water only helps the river if the accounting, contracts and agreements legally keep an equivalent amount of Colorado River water in the system.
NEW COASTAL WATERCreated outside the river allocation
→SUBSTITUTION / EXCHANGEParticipating users accept the new supply
→LEGAL ACCOUNTINGEquivalent river demand is reduced
→COLORADO RELIEFWater actually remains upstream
The hardest constraint may not be desalination technology.It may be creating enough legally creditable substitution and exchange pathways.
08 — ECONOMICS
PROMISING / PRELIMINARYWhat does it cost—and what should the Colorado River program actually pay for?
The economics model separates water infrastructure from revenue-producing power assets and recognizes local co-benefits rather than charging every dollar to basin recovery.
SEPARATE POWER LEDGER~$24.8B
An illustrative two-unit new-nuclear case plus initial solar + storage is modeled as a separate revenue-producing power portfolio.
Water buys electricity. It does not automatically absorb generation CAPEX.Planning-level real-dollar estimates—not bids, procurement prices or final engineering costs.
09 — EXECUTION
UNRESOLVEDTechnically possible is not the same as actually buildable.
Neither current workbook is a construction schedule. The next step is to convert a concept into a staged program that can survive engineering, environmental review, agreements and financing.
01FEASIBILITYClose the evidence gaps
→
02ENGINEERINGRoutes, plants, power and storage
→
03AGREEMENTSWater accounting + governance
→
04ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWImpacts + mitigation
→
05FINANCINGWho pays + who benefits
→
06PHASED CONSTRUCTIONProve, expand, operate
Think big. Build in phases.The older 3 MAF model itself recommends staging rather than betting the entire program on one corridor, treaty mechanism or technology.
10 — WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS TODAY
Thinking big is the beginning.
Proving it is the responsibility.
The current work supports continued study—but it does not support declaring the concept solved.
Water architecturePromising / needs more work
Colorado River impactSupported to date
Energy architecturePromising / needs more work
InfrastructurePromising / needs more work
EnvironmentUnresolved
Agreements + governanceMajor constraint
EconomicsPromising / preliminary
ExecutionUnresolved
Previous generations were willing to think big.
Our responsibility is to determine what is worth building next.
The evidence—not the ambition—must decide whether Save the Southwest deserves to become one of those projects.Model basis: Save the Southwest 3 MAF Feasibility Model, Project Economics Model, and Assumptions & Feasibility Executive Summary. Planning-level analysis; many findings remain preliminary.