There's lots of rainwater in aggregate if you look at very large areas, but I'm not sure if collecting rainwater over a huge area is necessarily more practical than desalination. I honestly haven't studied the matter, but judging from the fact that this guy's credentials seem to amount to "Has planted a bunch of trees," I'm unsure how much of an expert he is either. He says it isn't being pushed because there isn't any industry behind it, but that seems to be begging the question. Why is no one taking this field by storm if it's actually a more practical solution? Why isn't he making money hand over fist doing this? The disconnect between the reality he suggests and the reality we observe makes me doubtful about whether this is actually a more realistic approach than desal.
Wow, you opened a lot of boxes. Lipkis is actually much more than a guy that planted a bunch of trees. His organization, and a couple of others like FOLAR (https://folar.org), have been changing the way the city of LA approaches storm water.
As a nearby comment mentions, building regulations had been designed to convey rain water to the sea as fast as possible, due to a justified fear of floods. At the micro level, this means diverting rain water to concrete channels (e.g., streets or drainage channels). For instance, when I put in a building in my back yard, I had to install a pump to pump the water from a tank filled by the rooftop gutter into the street, rather than letting it soak in to my yard.
Now, multiply that by millions, and you can see we're wasting a lot of water.
Changing the whole conception of storm water ("collect and dispose of" -> "disperse and soak in") involves changing building codes and city/county/state infrastructure practices.
Because ground water is all externalities, there is no ready market solution.
Why is no one taking this field by storm if it's actually a more practical solution?
Because there isn't as much money in it as in ginormous megaprojects? E.g. the "train to nowhere"[1] in California had the support of a Teamster leader because:
The legislators in Sacramento got it right
when they voted to fund this project since
it will help hundreds of people find good
union jobs
and his quote continues
and the high speed rail line will provide
a viable alternative to car and plane travel
in the state.
I don't think that HSR from Madera California to Bakersfield California will be a "viable alternative" to anything.
Follow the money.[2]:
a catchphrase ... which suggests a money trail
or corruption scheme within high (often
political) office.
Same with water. Too many dollars at stake, and too many special interests, for simple commonsense solutions to be "practical".
