As U.S. water worries emerge, all eyes are on the Great Lakes

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1528216.html

DULUTH - When Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson suggested last month that states "awash in water" could share, it rocked a lot of boats in Great Lakes states.

"I believe that Western states and Eastern states have not been talking to each other when it comes to proper use of our water resources," Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, told the Las Vegas Sun. "I want a national water policy. ... States like Wisconsin are awash in water."

Environmental groups and politicians up and down the lakes blasted the idea, and Richardson later backed down, saying though a press secretary that he "in no way proposes federal transfers of water."

But the episode created a buzz that still could be heard here last week at a large conference about the future of Lake Superior, and it has fueled speculation about the "water wars" some predict for America as dry regions such as Richardson's run short.

Georgia and other southeastern states already are restricting water and battling over usage amid drought.

<more>

Some of us in the northeast remember when that was what people in the sunbelt were saying about us not that long ago.

I have an idea for a national water policy. Don't live in the desert.

stealing other people's water to irrigate with.

California passed Wisconsin as a dairy state by stealing the Colorado River & using it to green up their deserts so cows could live there.

don't use industrial-scale factory farming to do it. Organic farming helps the soil organic matter to increase, which reduces the need for supplemental water.

The factory farmers waste vast amounts of water.

We eat free-range chicken, turkey & beef bought from local small operators, mostly organic. And a little venison. Things like BGH are totally disgusting in ways you don't even suspect if you don't have inside knowledge of the dairy industry. Mad Cow Disease is transmitted among cattle by means of forced cannibalism-i.e. putting cow parts into cow feed.

Since we will need this with the ever expanding population...and the technology is still in its infancy...

goal the reclamation and reuse of 100% (yes, I said 100%) of its waste water. Anything else is just plain irresponsible.

Although 100% is impossible, due to evaporation etc....with reclamation a return of 70% would be nice!! I think we get something like 20% today.

I suppose 100% reclamation would be a great goal - definitely it would push us to be more efficient

it might help to think of it as non-contamination. Doesn't matter if you catch it, just don't poison it on the way through.

level. It's been dry up in northen MN. for the last few years. I know those of us in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan would get pretty pissed if they tried to tap into our water sources, and I'm quite sure Canada would throw an even bigger fit.

Any idea how many billions of gallons or cubic MILES of water that amounts to?

You can't share what you don't have.

or so. I know they've gotten some rain up there lately, but still, I just can't think tapping into the Great Lakes would be anything but a total environmental disaster.

Although, I suspect both impending crises have similar origins. As a Minnesotan, I have to look askance at suggestions that we should be forced to share our water with people who think they're entitled to green grass lawns, golf courses, and hydration-intensive agriculture in the middle of the desert.

I've been dreading it so long and then today water's at the top of the news. It could get VERY ugly.
Before I came to DU I used to hang at a site that had anti-environmental repuglycans at it and I warned them about the day we start grabbing and fighting just for water They thought I was the biggest idiot in the world.

Great question.

Move operations back to where the water is.

AND stabilize the population!!

Just wondering, because you're right that we may have to. I have a feeling that nobody is really ready for that, on either end of the stick.

that we have left, I'd take you back in an instant. And bring your jobs.

Lots of rehabilitable land in Flint, Detroit, Jackson and Muskegon. Muskegon even has nice beaches. Come on up!

Reports from my MI friends are that you all had a damned dry year up there. Given recent trends, I think we should all start assuming that this is the future. Not just for the southwest, but for the east and the north-east.

In other words, we may all find ourselves in water checkmate.

However, I think that we'll have water longer, and really, really huge beaches. Bad for shipping, though.

:dunce:

Not that we here in Phoenix aren't headed for trouble. Just sayin.

Phoenix is known to be dry. I assume that you planned a bit.

More correctly, the US taxpayers built the project to Phoenix and Tucson for about $7 Billion twenty years ago. So, Arizona did have "some" water available to build a metropolitan area.

The volume of 40% of the Colorado river was miscalculated. They took data during a period when precipitation was higher than normal.

There were some streams in the Phoenix area that had been used for water since before the European colonization.

I think that Arizona wanted the Central Arizona Project to be completed as soon as possible so that California did not make a grab for Arizona's very large allotment.

I don't understand why the project was not built in conduits like all of the California aqueducts. It was built as a trench with no cover--essentially and evaporation pond that is hundreds of miles long.

1) they assumed the climate would never get drier
2) they overbuilt for their water supply

In the East, users that are "near" the water can generally assume they have the right to use it. In the West, people downstream can prevent usage in the watershed hundreds of miles upstream. It is because the West is arid.

I assume that in the east, nobody ever grappled with water rights, due to the total lack of necessity.

Which is the opposite of the "Western Rule" which is that the first person to use the water has superior claim to the water. In simple term, since the Great lakes is used for shipping, and that shipping needs water, the shippers have Superior claim to the water than people downstream., even if the down stream user had used the water BEFORE the upper stream shippers used the water.

I had read about some of this, particularly the miscalculation of the Colorado River flow.

The hundreds-of-miles-long evaporation pond sounds like an unbelievably stupid thing. I wonder how much it would cost to build a pipe or covered conduit now?

It's stupid to even consider trying to transfer water from one place--which already needs it--thousands of miles to supply somewhere else. you want water, invest in some desalination plants along the coastline.

The problem with shifting water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest is more of HOW them why. We all know the Southwest needs more water and the mid-west has plenty, but how do you move WATER? One way is by tanker, but the cost will be excessive (i.e. Tractor-Trailers or Rail cars hauling water to the Southwest). The second way is some sort of diversion, either through a pipeline OR by reversing some rivers.

This gets us to the biggest hurtle, the Mississippi River. The Mississippi is between the Great Lakes and the South West. Any water MUST go through, under or over the Mississippi. Once past the Mississippi, you have to decide which tributaries you either want to reverse OR run a pipeline through with a Reverse Flow. You really have two choices, the Missouri and than the Plate or the Red River. Both start in the Rockies, which the Water must go under to get to the SouthWest (The Rio Grand is also in the way, but it is the highest long river in North America, as such you have to DRILL underneath it to get water from the Mississippi River to the Southwest.

Furthermore the pipeline MUST provide an adequate flow of water. Basically the size of a small River. You will have to drill this pipeline over 1000 miles UNDERGROUND. You will have to maintain pumps to get the water UP to the level where the pipeline is when it crosses the Rockies (i.e. the higher the pipeline, the less drilling is needed, but the more pumping you will need).

Given the above, this will be the biggest project in American History, making the Panama Canal look small (Remember Panama has some of the highest rainfall in the World, so the US could and did build a lock based canal, because Panama had the water at its highest point to do so). The Dams built in the 1920s onward would be minor compared to this project. It would be massive. At a minimum a pipeline from the Mississippi River to the headwaters of the Colorado and Rio Grand Rivers. All enclosed for you will pumping it UPSTREAM and toward the end UPHILL.

Give you an idea of HOW far up the water has to go, look at the difference between the water level At St Louis Mo and Albuquerque NM:

St Louis is 455 Feet Above Sea Level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri#Topography

Albuquerque NM: 5,312 Feet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque%2C_New_Mexico

Santa Fe NM 7320 Feet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe%2C_New_Mexico

Notice any water MUST raise at just less than 5000 feet (i.e. 1 mile). That is a HUGE elevation to move water over. Furthermore Santa Fe is further into the mountains the Water MUST either cut through or go over. Remember we are talking about water joint UPHILL not down hill, so it must be pumped.

For comparison the Panama Canal water DROPS from a height of only 85 feet above sea level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatun_Lake

The Colorado is FURTHER West so you must get through the Rio Grande River first, but at Las Vegas the Colorado is 2001 feet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas,_Nevada

My point is it is almost impossible to do what Richardson said, that is move water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest. The cost to OPERATE such a system will be tremendous, the cost ot BUILD it even higher. This is at least a Trillion Dollar deal, and probably 10s of Trillions of Dollars and as such will NEVER be built.

I've got my rifle, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only Midwesterner considering using force to protect our resources.

and use the massive solar resources in the southwest to desalinate the water?

It seems scalable.

A simple glass cover over a pool of water, the water will evaporate, collect on the glass, if the glass is slopped the water will trickle down the glass to any awaiting collection pipes to take the water where it is needed.

The big problem is the area of highest shortages is still a good 1/2 mile UP from the Ocean AND several hundred miles FROM the Ocean (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona). Furthermore the environmental impact on the Gulf of Cortex will be enormous (i.e. increase saltiness do to water removal). In fact on reading about the Rio Grande, the lower part of the Rio Grande gets very little water from the part in New Mexico, most comes from Tributaries that run from Mexico itself (and during the present drought, Mexico has been keeping excessive amounts of water, much like Americans are doing in the Colorado water shed). The cost to move the water UP the Rio Grande would be excessive, even if it is salt water.

Now to California, the situation is different, you are nearer the ocean, and NOT as high up. On the down side you do NOT get the solar power of Arizona and New Mexico (It does rain in Southern California).

As to Solar system, it can be done, but moving the water remains. Any Fresh Water derived from the solar system will still have to be pumped UPHILL. Solar power, via electricity, may be able to do the pumping, but the overall system will will still be costly to operate (Maintenance on the Glass panels and the Solar Panels).

The biggest problem for the SOuth West is that it is NOT in any regular weather pattern that brings water into the area. The Pacific Current heads straight for San Francisco, and then turns South and Westward, taking what ever water it has (Making Southern California drier than Northern California for example. On top of this the Sierra Mountains bloke any rain that does make it into Southern California from heading further east into Arizona and New Mexico (And even West Texas). East Texas and East, get water from rain coming NORTH from the Gulf of Mexico (and some via a Northern Route via Seattle and Canada). There is no way to change this. This is how the winds blow (and derived from the Gulf of Mexico which is one of the reasons Hurricanes are so common in the Gulf). The Rockies stop this water from going to far west (Through the main reason is the fact the prevailing weather pattern in the Northern Hemisphere is West to East).

Northern Mexico and the American South West is a desert do to its location and how the winds blow. Nothing being proposed will change that. Even Global Warming will NOT change that (Through increase the intensity, including the draw of moisture from the Southwest done by the Pacific Current).

to live in a desert prepare to be thirsty. It's called common sense. If you can't hack the weather then don't try to reap its benefits fucktard.

Is Bill Richardson a fucking dumbass or what?