Small issue of infrastructure
So, good article, but I have a few quibbles as someone who lives in California.
First, this assumes that there are enough desalinization plants to handle demand - which there aren't, and there won't be for quite some time. Desalinization plants are expensive to build and maintain, and every time those of us who support them try to get them built, the various interests opposing them kick up a huge fuss - interests that vary depending on where, precisely, you want to build the thing, but generally including both environmentalists and very rich people who don't like eyesores. Even if you can get the things built, they still need to be certified as safe by various agencies, etc., which turns into a (mostly political) boondoggle.
Second, this also assumes that there's enough electricity capacity to manage to run the things. This is a somewhat more complex topic, but the long and short of it is that, especially since the nuclear plant down by San Diego was forced to close, electricity capacity is somewhat shaky, especially during the height of summer. California's electricity infrastructure doesn't really have the capacity for the amount of load that a bunch of new desal plants would require - we've already got advertisements all over the radio demanding electricity conservation pretty much year-round.
Remember, any power used for desalinization is power that can't be used to run the air conditioners of the rich folk in Beverly Hills, and they get all upset when rolling blackouts start.
So yes, it would be, when amortized across the entire population, a fairly reasonable cost and one which I, for one, would be more than willing to bear. However, as lovely as the plan is in theory, implementing it in practice is significantly more complex.
But if Mr. Page would like to come show us lazy Californians how it works, I'd be more than willing to give him directions to Sacramento so he can show our perpetually incompetent legislature what for.