General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT: A 600-mile pipeline from Missouri River to give water to Western states?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/science/earth/federal-plans-for-colorado-river-include-pipeline.htmlWater Piped to Denver Could Ease Stress on River
By FELICITY BARRINGER
The federal government has come up with dozens of ways to enhance the diminishing flow of the Colorado River, which has long struggled to keep seven states and roughly 25 million people hydrated.
Among the proposals in a report by the Bureau of Reclamation, parts of which leaked out in advance of its expected release this week, are traditional solutions to water shortages, like decreasing demand through conservation and increasing supply through reuse or desalination projects.
But also in the mix, and expected to remain in the final draft of the report, is a more extreme and contentious approach. It calls for building a pipeline from the Missouri River to Denver, nearly 600 miles to the west. Water would be doled out as needed along the route in Kansas, with the rest ultimately stored in reservoirs in the Denver area.
Experts say the plan is reminiscent of those proposed in the middle of the last century, when grand and exorbitant federal water projects were commonplace and not, with the benefit of hindsight, always advisable.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,620 posts)Mark my words........the water wars are coming.
elleng
(130,908 posts)this is another version. (Recall Chinatown???)
AND, Missouri (and Mississippi) don't HAVE the water they had in the past, due to drought, so I don't see this as practical.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,620 posts)And yes, I sure do remember Chinatown. Great movie with a great lesson.
And even if Missouri and Mississippi had the water they used to have, they wouldn't want to give it up for this plan, even if they were well paid, I suspect.
elleng
(130,908 posts)even for pay. And IMAGINE trying to figure out HOW to pay WHOM??? Not a problem I'd like to have to address!
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,620 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)And gee, look who has the water and lots of room:
Detroit
Cleveland
Buffalo
Rochester
Toledo
etc.
All the users have to do is make sure that the water is clean before it is returned to the system.
hunter
(38,312 posts)Dumb, expensive idea, especially if the pumps are powered by fossil fuels.
Anyways, when climate change induced drought gets worse it will be people moving, not water.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)handle (2011 was a bad flood year, for example). Might make sense if it can be drawn off and stored in years when there's enough flow, but obviously you can't take out so much in drier years that it affects the midwestern/southern states that rely on it for navigation, agriculture, etc. I guess crazier things have happened, but it would be a big effort to make it work.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)If water is a scarce resource, why is it so cheap? Shouldn't we raise the rates to discourage waste?
pscot
(21,024 posts)The whole Mississippi basin is droughty. The climate guys think this may be a semi-permanent new climate regime. The Anasazi would understand.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Climate Change, which Republicans assure us (wink, wink) is not real, may throw a turd or two billion in the water pof this misbegotten idea.
janx
(24,128 posts)silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]We spend/subsidize billions to seek out, acquire, refine, and distribute oil/gasoline so that adequate amounts of it are in every corner of the nation. Ditto generation/distribution of electricity.
What's so far fetched about doing something similar with water?
Off-shore solar/tidal generating and desalination complexes are far less outrageous than off-shore oil/gas drilling sites, and pipelines for water would be nothing like the environmental hazard of oil and gas pipelines.
Yeah, it would cost money. So does drought.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Sheer arrogant IDIOCY (R)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)someone is dreaming ....
MadHound
(34,179 posts)So that millions of humans can live in an environment that simply doesn't support that many people.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)That plan was shot down then as this one will be.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)We're already in a drought. Do this and water prices will skyrocket here. That means food prices will dramatically increase throughout the USA.
hatrack
(59,587 posts)Not likely.
The Missouri itself doesn't matter a damn for shipping, but the Mississippi sure does.
a kennedy
(29,661 posts)Water wars is right.....could get real nasty real fast.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)The measure, the Great Lakes Compact, was negotiated by the eight states. A decade in the making, it is intended to ease longstanding fears that states outside the region, or even other countries, could tap into the lakes, possibly deplete them and do long-term damage to their basins natural environment and economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/washington/24lakes.html?_r=0
unhappycamper
(60,364 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)no doubt the idiots haven't checked all the repercussions in this.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Sienna86
(2,149 posts)Isn't the Missouri River having trouble with barge traffic due to low flow?
We have some serious reckoning to do in this country with prioritizing our fresh water use.
janx
(24,128 posts)but the Missouri flows into it, so yes, it would be affected.