Disclosure - I have an Upper Basin bias.
What a conundrum. If tribes actually get the water they’re entitled to, they might be the only party better off than before.
Great history on how the prioritization to develop the southwestern US has led to the current flustercluck.
I think the United States needs to build water pipelines to move water around the United States. Take the flood waters and move them to other areas. It’s not just the Colorado basins that are having problems with water. Last year Montana had problems and so did the Mississippi river.
Andy
For as long as I can remember, people from western states have been floating proposals to drain the Great Lakes, at government expense, for their benefit. That bunch of COMMIES!!! across the river from me would not be amused.
Steve…what is a treaty, but a piece of paper, says the Shiny faction
Water has always been controversial. But if you read my post I didn’t say anything about draining the great lakes. It was all about taking flood waters and moving them to other areas. You know, so my tax dollars do not have to pay for the damn “Socialists” to live in a flood plain.
Andy
Any sort of a “water project” usually involves massive amounts of government money, and there are always charges of mismanagement, waste, and corruption.
As for the Mississippi, the source of water for juicing up the river, that people keep looking at is Lake Michigan. There has been a canal connecting the lake to the river system that feeds the Mississippi for years. That canal is still open, in spite of the threat of silver carp getting into the lake from the river system, because the obvious carp preventive, closing the canal, would hurt someone’s profits.
Remember the flap over this project?
Well there is always the crowd that says any amount of government is a waste of money, but who are you going to listen to? The people wanting everyone to do nothing or the people looking to make a better life for everyone?
Look at this map. See that little river called the Missouri?
Every year, or almost every year, you hear people along the banks of the Missouri river complaining about floods. But what I am proposing isn’t a take from You and give to me, what I am proposing is moving water around where it is needed. I know it would be a huge undertaking but looking out 50 years it might not be a bad idea to start now.
Andy
All it takes is a dozen nuclear power plants to power the pumps. Easy Peasy. Moving water around is very energy intensive.
Is there someplace that always floods, and where the water can be timely drained, stored, and then released slowly to areas that need it in othe seasons? And what would that cost?
Moving large quantities of water even just dozens of miles can be vastly expensive. Getting water from the continental basin up over the Rocky Mountains seems unlikely at best. Possible (anything is possible) I suppose, but at what cost?
If anything, it would be nice to find a HUGE place to store the water up in the mountains somewhere. Then, pump it up there anytime you have excess energy (and you can arrange excess energy in various ways). That way, when you need the water, you can release it and generate some energy on the way down.
So how do they move oil around Volucris? Wouldn’t water be easier?
Andy
Think about this. They bottle water and put it on trucks and ship it all around the country. The difference is that it is a company doing it and making money off of it. I remember as a kid I said it was stupid to buy bottled water. I still think that, but now it is more common. For the public good everything is expensive and there is always to much waste and corruption, but for a company to do it and make a profit off of the same public, well that is ok. I know this doesn’t answer your question but at the basis of it, it does. No one wanted to pay for a highway system but for the public good we had some politicians actually implement it.
Andy
The problem is the amount of water used compared oil. Some googling gave me these numbers.
US Daily Water Use - 322 Billion gallons
US Daily Oil Use - 826 Million gallons
Which goes back to the cost issue raised earlier…
DB2
Bottled water and its transport is entirely irrelevant to this particular water discussion. That’s because most people don’t realize the enormity of water usage. ALL the bottled water in the USA in an entire year is equivalent to about an hour of total DAILY water usage in the USA.
Cutting back on consumption and evaporative loss should be the priority.
Evaporative coolers on new commercial buildings are no longer allowed in some areas. Other areas impose excessive use fees to lower consumption.
Before we start sending more water to the southwest, consumption needs to reflect the fact that water resources are scarce.
It also may not make sense to grow high water usage crops in places that suffer regular drought. Even if the world would have to deal with much fewer almonds and pistachios.
Change it to ‘so my tax dollars do not have to pay for the damn “Conservatives” to live in a natural desert.’ You know, most of southern CA.
Not really. Oil is less dense than water. Easier to pump. Also, 44 gallons of oil is ~$100 or so, 44 gallons of untreated water is essentially $0.01 maybe. Heck, drinking water is $5/thousand gallons or so. Not much bang for the buck. 85% of the water in the SW is used for farming. I think it is 10 gallons for 1 almond. Farming might be less viable with less water, but you could put in solar panels where cotton was grown.
The evaporative loss of Lake Powell is about 12’ in lake depth, every freaking year. Not to mention the water that seeps into the sandstone. It’s around 6% of the annual flow of the Colorado River, depending on the year. I don’t think Nevada gets 6% of the rivers flow.
