From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Hausler’s idea is to bring water from the Mississippi just below its confluence with the Ohio River across Missouri and Kansas into Colorado. The 800-mile system of pipelines, ditches and reservoirs would cost an estimated $23 billion and could provide 1 million acre-feet of water a year to Colorado. That’s just a little less than the total amount used by cities and more than enough to meet the projected municipal gap for the next 50 years.
He’s presented the idea to the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, state officials (including former Gov. Bill Ritter) and anyone else who will listen. And there’s the problem. They just listen. And maybe snicker a little. “The project is pretty dead right now,” said Hausler, a Gunnison rancher and mining engineer, in a telephone interview Monday. “I’ve gotten tired of beating my head against the wall. I think it’s silly and short-sighted, certainly parochial. Nobody in this state is really looking forward.” Hausler said the cost of construction and operation of a Mississippi River pipeline would be in line with the cost per acre-foot of proposed projects from the Colorado River…
The Mississippi River passes more than 240 million acre-feet annually at the proposed point of diversion, 30 miles south of Cairo, Ill. During the current flooding, more than 4 million acre-feet per day are flowing at that spot…
Hausler insisted the Mississippi River pipeline is a true regional solution that would not dry up any farmland or put any further stress on the Colorado River. “We need to ignore the arbitrary state lines drawn on a map in 1860s Washington and come up with a regional solution to water needs that will benefit the entire West including several Plains states,” Hausler said.
More pipeline from the Mississippi River coverage here.
The proposal makes very good sense, considering the drought situation in the southwest at present. We as America, could certainly benefit from such a project. It could satisfy the needs of millions of Americans during years where flooding is more likely and drought grips the farming communities. It would create jobs and stability in many areas. Seems like a workable idea for many, rather than concentrating tax dollars on a bullet train that only provides the convenience of speed, but no solutions for sustainability.
Camman,
Thanks for commenting. Ms. Mulroy’s plan has significant water quality concerns. I believe it will be hard or impossible for her to get the major Front Range west slope diverters to send their water down to the Lower Colorado River in exchange for water from east of the Colorado-Kansas border.
Maybe we’ll see a reverse-Flaming Gorge pipeline?
John Orr
The water comes from mississippi where sea level is only 500 feet. The Glen canyon is 24oo feet. Do the math, would have to Pump all the water . Could be a disaster and flow back to mississippi
Right Way,
Good points. Technically feasible, maybe, but practical, legal, and cost effective. Water pipelines are energy intensive. There are more questions than answers.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
The need for both water in the west and electric power storage from wind and solar sources precedent the unique opportunity in moving millions of foot acres of Mississippi water at 30’ elevation at Morganza Spillway to McClure Reservoir at 7000’ elevation. The 1000 mile pipeline thru LA, TX and NM’s sparsely populated terrain would capture peak wind and solar electric power generation enabling continuous service from these intermittent sources while simultaneously positioning trillions of gallons of potable water that will meet the needs for generational growth and prosperity in NM, AR, and Southern CA!
Dave,
Thanks for commenting. I love the ambition but we can’t build our way out of water scarcity. The West needs to rip out their bluegrass. Ironically, mitigating the climate crisis has been modeled to show the effects of different emission scenarios on supply: https://coyotegulch.blog/2021/09/23/study-dry-future-likely-unavoidable-for-southwest-but-reducing-greenhouse-gases-can-still-help-noaa/
The costs of moving water are huge. I do like the solar and wind renewable power to move the water. It may be too unaffordable for large segments of the population.
The final hurdle is the controlling agency. What would you suggest? A compact amongst the affected states?
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
I have to say the dam and pipeline meant to siphon the excess Mississippi River water across the Rockies to the Colorado river flowing to Arizona, Neveda Utah, and California has precedence, and been in the works to be done “someday” the past 50 years.
Jeff,
Sort of link oil shale being the “Next Big Thing” for over 100 years. If only moving water wasn’t so expensive.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
The Big Thompson Tunnel siphons off Colorado river water 13 miles under the continental divide west to east out of Colorado’s 2nd largest reservoir in the state. This is a 9.5 ft pipe that takes water from the Colorado Basin and sends it to the Missouri Basin. WHY?
Mike,
Thanks for commenting. It’s due to 80% of the precipitation in Colorado falls west of the Continental Divide of the Americas and 90% of Colorado’s population lives east of the divide. The Colorado-Big Thompson Project was originally an irrigation supply but as northern Colorado grew farmers retired off their water shares selling to Front Range cities.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Wow Colorado River watershed to the Mississippi watershed. I understand the reasoning when built. We are so far away from the federal Big picture planning of the interstate highway conceptualization. The solution is simple. Pipe very clean Lake Superior water to Colorado and refill the ogala wells. Pay Canada and eastern states appropriately. Let the west have the much needed diversion. Plus trade out surplus Arkansas Flow to the West at elevation. Everyone will win. Yet most importantly we cover much of the west with green. Basically save mankind from weather disaster.
I agree completely with this idea as I have also viewed into the future of food to feed our Nation and needs to be understood better with the water source of the Colorado River drying up being such a serious problem for the agriculture of crops and not feeding Americans!
The needs to be addressed by all Americans that like to eat my friends!!!! Get in touch with your politicians!
If the nut tree, fruit trees and berries were grown using the espalier method they would not need so much water as they are wasting it otherwise.
If they used ridge tillage to grow row crop vegetables and strawberries they would need much less water.
They have to change their growing methodology to begin with otherwise any effort is simply a waste.
Leon,
Thanks for commenting. You’re right, Ag needs to look up and down and across their practices as the west aridifies.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
I live in Las Vegas nv I moved from alton illinois which gets flooded yearly why cant hauslers idea be taken seriously to prevent flooding and service other short watered states west of the Mississippi. Roni P Mclemore
Cost, water rights, rights of way, and too many states and entities for governance. What would the water cost? Agriculture can’t pay much for water and they are the biggest users. Drying up Ag is much more economical for cities.
I agree. The legacy from colonial thieves is apparent in shareholders of the Salt River Project and other flood irrigation districts in Arizona, they pay pennies to flood their almonds and cows in the middle of the Sonoran. Growing ammonds and stuff in circles is not right when there is no water and no real competitive advantage once you account for the fact that it takes 2000 gallons of water to make a pound of ammonds we ship to china. give me a break. we send them our alfafa too just stop it.
The right to divert is a private property right administered by the states. It would take legislation to tell farmers what they can do with their property right and I don’t see the political will to tackle any environmental question.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
Another similar idea is build a water pipeline from Davenport IA…the Mississippi River…to Rock Springs WY…the Green River, which is a major tributary to the Colorado River. Take water from where there is too much of it and pipe it to the Colorado River where 40 million rely on it…in addition to the agricultural areas in the Southwest that serves the entire country.
Mark,
I haven’t heard about that idea before.There’s a major utility corridor through there to the Green River and Green River, Wyoming. That might help with permitting. There would be major transit loss in the Green River, Lake Powell, the Colorado River, and Lake Mead.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
The idea is great and the first thing that people say is The Cost.I would be willing to bet that the Farmers in Arizona and California would be will to pay some for the water.Remember no water for farmers and then there will not be any crops.The United States also has an International Treaty with Mexico to send water to Mexico annually.This would hel the Farmers,the people and the International Treaty.Come on Washington,do something useful for a change.
John,
I believe it would have to be financed by the federal government. Many of the federal irrigation projects have never been paid off. Farmers are not a reliable source for cash due to the vagaries of the business.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
The Federal government has to take control. Three reasons.
1, huge lower costs of energy and consequential green jobs. Look to California’s number one solar system problem. Surplus energy when the sun’s shining and the winds blowing. The entire national system could be predicted on massive renewal systems surplus energy. When surplus is available pump water to elevation. Run hydroelectric when energy is needed.
2. Water in the west will cover earth and cool the planet.
3. Keep the system in the people’s hands. Follow the example of the interstate highway system and the amazing hydroelectric system we the public own. Water federal land and lease to farmers. No need to make more farmer multi-millioners. Give honest ranchers and farmers fair leases. Provide American native reservations water on their land we forced them go to. Yeah, the land white settlers considered worthless.
Thomas,
I like the emphasis on keeping the project public.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
I believe there’s an even bigger idea that can solve the challenges, pay for itself over time and create sustainable jobs for millions. Imagine an inland water way that goes from the mouth of the Gulf in Louisiana West to the Colorado river. Sure there will be some disrupt with some private homes being challenged. But we can work around almost all of that by using a creative water path. But you make this water way 50 feet deep and 300 feet wide and you’ll have boating and recreation, you’ll have real estate development, both commercial and residential. John Lennon taught us to imagine. So imagine …
Ambitious thinking. First time I’ve heard of creating a recreation amenity.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
We all know the single biggest user of water in the entire southwest is California agriculture, so this is where more water..from a NEW source..is needed. The solution is a solar powered desalination plant build inland, because the area needed is too much for placing it on beachfront property. Instead build it near the Golden Acorn Casino in Live Oak Springs, CA. Electricity to pump the seawater uphill to this location is a small price to pay. The desalinated water going to the farms in the Imperial Valley and the brine returned to the ocean both flow downhill by gravity. An additional pipe of seawater water is added to the brine just before release to the ocean, which greatly reduces the level of salinity of the brine water. This desalinated water largely..if not entirely.. replaces the huge amount of water the Imperial Valley has always taken from the Colorado River, which leaves that water in Lake Mead and the Colorado River for the benefit of the other southwestern states…who should therefore proportionately share in the cost of building this solar powered desalination plant. The cost to operate this desalination plant will be low because the sun does not send a power bill to our planet
This should be the Big Green Deal that the Democrats want so bad.Yes l would love to be the man ,that makes this Happen.Common sense They need water out ,we need water in.
Thanks for commenting. The logistics though…
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
this should be the big digging project the trumpies want so bad. i can’t imagine any project before the advent of right of way and environmental reviews ever passing muster for this author.
You’re right. The logistics for building this are incredibly complex. Initial costs and operating costs would be prohibitive.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Getting water to the Southwest with the existential threat posed by the drought should not be characterized as a Democratic or Republican issue. Right now the issue is finding the leader who will push for finding…then enacting the solution to get water from where there is an abundant supply to where it is needed. Realistic solutions include undersea pipelines that carry water from rivers that pour into the ocean in central California and get it to Los Angeles and/or San Diego. (Yes.. this is realistic..as there are undersea pipelines that transport oil). And there are solar powered desalination plants that can be built as covered in other posts on this site. These solutions immediately and directly benefit S. California, but the result is S, California needing less water from the Colorado River which leaves that amount of water to be used by the other southwestern states. I also believe we are sick to death tired of hearing the nay sayers tell us nothing will work..nothing can be done. The nay sayers will have us wait and do nothing until Lake Mead’s water level drops to dead pool. And one final solution has to do with reservoir and lake water evaporation control. The amount of water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead lost by evaporation alone is staggeringly unbelievably incredibly huge. Look it up for yourself. Then wait for the next nay sayer tell us trying to do something about this will, of course, not work.
Mark, thanks for commenting. I like the idea of freshwater pump-backs from the coast but the legal entanglements would be tough to overcome. Technical feasibility also does not overcome costs. Who will pay for your plans? I remember rumors about Las Vegas being willing to pay for desalination in S. California so that the water would be left in Lake Mead for Las Vegas. Alas, conserved water goes to the next entity in priority under water law. Ag is still the biggest user of water in the Basin. I’m all for creative solutions but I have the question, “How will you allocate water in times of scarcity?”
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
We built the Hoover Dam, we built an amazing interstate highway system, we landed on the moon. The logistics for each of these endeavors were equally complex and the costs were high. $23 Billion dollars is equal to $70 for each person in this country. If it takes 5 years to complete that would be a cost of $14 per year per person. That is about 5 cents per day per person. Is bringing much needed water to the desert southwest really worth 5 cents per day? I can’t imagine anyone saying no to that question. We need a mechanism to take this to the people instead of the politicians. I know there is a way. Let me know how I can help.
Earl,
First, make sure that you throw out all the business as usual politicians that you can, from local government on up. Organize and support those that want the U.S. to get serious about the climate crisis. Call out leaders in business and government when they are lying or mistaken about climate change. We are rapidly losing a stable climate because we are messing with the water cycle. Only governments around the world can solve the climate puzzle. We have the pieces needed but someone has to put them in place.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Coyote..getting more water in Lake Mead benefits the entire Southwest…not just Las Vegas. Las Vegas does an incredible fantastic job conserving and recycling water. But it is not enough. Additional measures are needed. By the way..at some future point the non stop drop in Lake Meads water level will affect the value of homes n Las Vegas. The big increase in home prices in LV will come to a shocking end.
Mark,
Thanks for commenting. Getting more water into Lake Mead *is* the Holy Grail. Have you read “The Water Knife”?
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Worked in the pipeline industry for 35 years. Tried to get the CPUC in 2000 intersted in utilizing a oil pipeline for other purposes that ran from North LA to south LA All we got was a conversation about the football game. Now there are even more lines available to move water from SF to LA., but no leadership.
You should not expend billions in capital cost to build pipelines from Mississipi to Cororado river, with high annual op costs, when you can take Pacific ocean water thru desalinzation facility and only pump minimal miles. If expending capital , expend it to where there is an unlimited source, i.e the Pacific.. Middle East has already done this so just copy there plans and learn from their mistakes.
Carl,
Thanks for commenting.
I agree with you in some ways but how will we handle the brine. I wonder what is happening in the Middle East with brine. I would suspect that environmentally sound disposal gets the short shrift there. I vacationed one Christmas in Aruba and they also desalinate water for their supply.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
John, here is your answer to the brine issue.
My last 10 years with ConocoPhillips Pipeline Company was Acquisition/Divestiture and Special Projects, so i understand the issues such as a pipeline from Midwest to California and also the issues on Desalinization Project.
You asked how to handle the brine and I am attaching the article from MIT that answer this question. The answer for water source for Colorado river is the Pacific not a Midwest US source. Good Luck
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Aruba does not have a Mississippi River source to draw from and the costs of desalination are far greater than pumping fresh water from the Mississippi. The distribution system from the Colorado river already exists. Billions of acre feet of fresh water is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico and that is so wasteful when the fresh water is much needed in the Desert Southwest.
Thanks for commenting. You’re right on many levels. Who would be the governing entity for the proposed pipeline? Would it require a compact amongst the affected states? I’m not sure that there would be a water rights issue and I doubt it.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Not sure i understand your point, Aruba is in the carribean, while California already has built a desalinization, so they know how to operate efficiently. My last comment is ok if you divert water from Mississipi- whose owns the water once it reaches Colorado-which state has priority. Then if there is a drought in the midwest, does the pipeline go dry and once again all western states are back to square one. With my suggestion, you source the water from the Pacific, which will never go dry.
Thanks for commenting. My point about Aruba was that they rely exclusively on desalinated water so the tech is there. It’s proven.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
Solar technology has become very inexpensive. Less than 20 cents per Watt. Earl Schmidt and I agree. Pump water during the day to elevation. Then create hydroelectric in the evening. Louisiana to California and all the states in between. Massive Grasslands added to suck up CO2. Warm weather winter ag for Arizona, California and Mexico.
Thomas,
Thanks for commenting. The solutions are out there but not supported by the ruling class.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
The Andes are one of the greatest raintraps in the world. Imagine massive solar in Chile and Peru pumping water from the Amazon which has three and a half times the flow of the Mississippi. They could have massive dams for hydroelectric and recreation west of the mountains. We could create massive grasslands to reverse CO2 increases. The payments to pay for this with come from electrical users and water users. Pretty much like the US government Treasury let the money to the various agencies to create the Hoover dam
I really like the recreation and creation of grassland ideas, but anyone who has had serious communication with landowners will know that they won’t sell their property at anything resembling a reasonable price. Not for something they don’t feel is their problem. They may be willing to allow a pipeline across their land ($$$) but selling their families heritage so people can water ski, fish and build vacation homes is unlikely at best. Even if you could get the various government agencies on board, the hurdles would still be enormous; and $23 billion would only be a drop in the bucket of what would be the true cost.
Forrest,
But just think of the ROW agent’s job. It would take years and years to get something like this done. The terminal states can’t use eminent domain across state lines.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
The idea of a building and implementing a canal system to fed excess Mississippi River water to the Colorado River Basin is daunting but like anything else it is not impossible to build it.
A canal system would be simpler to build and maintain with impoundments to hold water and implementing the use of water pumping windmills to move it up hill from each storage basin with the primary catchment basin or basins used for the collection of river sediment and then used for soil enrichment on local farmland.
Pumping water up hill has been done for many years in the creation of hydropower generated electricity using basic mathematics, time proven hydraulic principals for the movement of fluids and centrifugal pumps.
Water pumping windmills with a 12 inch diameter drop pipe, large diameter wind sails and assembled with the long stroke could be used effectively to pump water from storage basins to the next storage basin using 12 inch High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) pipe at very low pressure. In times of no wind conditions(becalmed) a rocking horse pump jack powered by an electric motor could be used to pump water to the next basin or a second transfer pump station.
Certainteed Yellomine pipe could be used to pump water from one basin to another over a vertical elevation distance to quickly take advantage of higher elevations where possible and quickly fill storage basins and continue to allow water pumping windmills to move water through a 12 inch pipeline.
Using 40 feet for the example the amount of water a 40 foot pipe joint will store is 235 gallons per 40 foot pipe joint and 31,000+- gallons per mile (5280 feet).
An acre foot of water is equal to 43,560 gallons and is equal to 185 forty foot 12 inch pipe joints+-.
Using a windmill pump jack to push water through a 12 inch pipeline can be done in low wind conditions rather than a centrifugal pump making it even simpler to do.
Using a pump jack pushing 100 gallons per minute 24 hours a day for 365 days will move 88,125,600 gallons of water equal to 270.45 acre feet. Its not a lot in the scheme of things but it is a start I guess.
If a horizontal directional drilling method was used to install the smaller HDPE pipeline it would be less disruptive as very long lengths of HDPE pipe could be installed at shallow depths with steel casings installed under railroad beds and roads to protect the 12 inch diameter HDPE pipeline as it is installed.
One of the many major issues would be the high probability of low winter water levels in the lower Mississippi Valley Basin
due to ice build up in the upper Mississippi slowing the flow of water down river.
It’s affect on navigation on the lower part of the Mississippi River Basin by reducing the depth of free flowing water that is deep enough for ocean going ships that travel up and down river as well as the barge traffic that travels in both directions.
Added to that the potential for groundings of the ocean going vessels as well as the barges and tug boats traveling up river that would have to be recovered that could be damaged from groundings in the river bed if the 13 foot depth of water is not maintained for safe navigation.
A major advantage to doing this would be to slow down the amount of silt that would be pushed into the gulf and as a result the amount of land being washed away would be significantly reduced allowing the bottom land to increase in volume but in order to do this tens of millions of gallons of river water per minute would have to be removed up river.
The water screw would of course be perfect for this and be able to fill a canal and water screws further down the canal path would be used to overcome elevations as needed by increasing the speed of screw rotation per minute.
A large diameter water screw or battery of water screws can be used to lift water up hill. A canal fed by water screws would be able to provide enough water to fill it continuously as long as the screw intake is submerged in water.
If you like you can look on Wikipedia and see pictures of the Archimedes’ water screw and the design and theory behind it to do many jobs like lifting water out of polders at Kinderdijk in the Netherlands and a water sculpture using the Archimedes’ water screw.
Thanks for commenting. As with many of today’s problems the tech is there but the political will…?
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
I guess the only way anything related to this is going to be worked on is if:
1. a declared federal water emergency declaration has taken effect.
2. the water use by almond growers could be reduced by committing
almond growers to using the espalier orchard growing method where
almonds and other tree crops are grown in close proximity to each
and the tree limbs are wire tied to heavy fence wire attached to steel
fence posts that are used to support the tree limbs.
a. less water is needed for irrigation.
b. less labor for pruning is needed as the tree size is controlled by the
distance between trees in the fence line and the trees do not grow
any taller than the fence lines and the amount of tree fruit grown is
in a denser square area.
c. The fruit trees are more exposed to sunlight and will create more healthy
larger fruit as less fertilizer is needed.
d. The square area of the orchards are smaller as the tree fence line rows are
closer and will produce as much or more tree fruit with the same amount of
fertilizer if it is needed but as the fruit trees are closer less fertilizer is wasted.
3. The almond harvesting machinery would have to be modified and the parts from
existing tree shakers modified OR self propelled grape harvesters could be
employed with heavy brushes used on street sweepers to strip the almonds from
the narrow rows of almond trees with the harvesters straddling the fence lines as
is done with wine grapes.
The opportunity to grow other tree fruits in the same manner would be worth attempting as the tree orchard is in a more controlled environment with less foliage and stronger limbs allowing more blossoms to be pollinated with les effort by the bees
The beehive owners could reduce the chances of them being bee napped by using a modified livestock trailer as the trailer hitch would have a lock on it and the size of the livestock trailer would prevent the hives from being stolen by using machinery to lift and move the hives as the access ramp would be locked.
The livestock trailer that was modified for bee work would or could have solar panels on it and batteries to power night vision cameras to protect the bees from being stolen as it could be set up using wired motion sensors that would be connected to cell phones or smart phones.
It is not that simple,
a pipeline from Lake Superior to Colorado would not even be possible due to the Great Lakes Compact which is the agreement between the United States and Canada on managing the Great Lakes Water.
Using large diameter water screws as is done in Denmark and other low countries moves billions of gallons of water out to keep farmland dry and move massive amounts of fresh flood water economically to drain wetlands.
Water screws could be used to move the river water up hill and keep the canals filled as long as the water levels remained high enough at the canal mouth.
The canals would have to be precast in 40 foot lengths and use gasketed joints to seal them allowing a faster installation period.
Solar evaporation would or could be reduced by using the white plastic balls used in the reservoirs to reduce evaporation at the transfer weirs.
As long as we are looking at it a temporary narrow gauge rack railway could be used with flat cars to transport the concrete channels along the trench and also be used to remove the trench spoil and rock mined out to create the trenches.
As the trench is excavated and the concrete channels are installed and completed the temporary track panels and railway equipment would be moved westward as the construction advances west.
Temporary depots would have to be created for servicing the rack locomotives, rail mounted cranes, flat cars and side dumping muck cars used to build the rack railway and maintain it just as it was done at the Panama Canal.
I like your solutions. However I believe Canada and the United States could easily be persuaded to send Superior water west equally for two reasons. 1. Economic return on investment. 2. Save mankind. As George Carlin said, “The planet will do fine. Mankind is f——.”
Dear Mr. Olson,
The Great Lakes Commission is a dual government municipality as Government of Canada and The United States are affected by anything that occurs on the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Basin Compact and The Great Lakes Commision would certainly not even consider discussing this as
removal of massive amounts of water was attempted before by a fellow that wanted to obtain Great Lakes water by pumping it into a large tanker. and transferring it to a processing facility on shore in the United States where the water would be filtered, purified bottled and sold in the United States.
The Great Lakes Commision oversees maintaining adequate water levels in all five lakes for navigation of lake and ocean going vessels as well as passage through the St. Lawrence Seaway, The Welland Canal from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie among others.
The Province of Ontario, The State of Minnesota to the west, The State of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to the south of Lake Superior as well as New York State, The State of Ohio, The State of Indiana, The State of Michigan, and the State of Wisconsin have representation on the Great Lakes Commission and they all have a say in how the great lakes water shed is managed as all of them are affected by anything that can affect water levels in the great Lakes.
Managing the Great Lakes Watershed is akin to rowing a boat by committee any time the shorelines are affected by high lake levels and as a result flooding, ice will build up and travel inland and can destroy property and create millions of dollars in property damage.
The St. Lawrence River Basin is also affected by high water levels that affect The Provinces of Ontario and Quebec
where massive flooding will travel inland and cause huge amounts of damage to the Cities, towns and villages in Ontario and Quebec.
Managing the proper water levels in the Great Lakes Basin MUST provide enough water for annual shipping traffic, recreational boating, drinking water and crop irrigation(via permit). The water levels must also be managed to prevent shore erosion as well as there is a great deal of private and municipal property that can be damaged and or destroyed if erosion is not controlled.
The other annual issue is flooding from snow melt and the release of flood waters to relieve flood damage.
Lake levels are monitored and when the spring thaw comes the need to control flooding and any downstream damage has to be taken into consideration as well to protect the public and all the municipalities.
It is hard to create a delicate balance in snowmelt season as too much water released has consequences that will occur weeks later with faster lake shore erosion and if not enough is released it will flood the low land areas. Heavy rain periods can cause a great deal of off season flooding in the summer and fall months as well.
The entire surface area of the Great Lakes is also affected by evaporation from heat and sunlight as well and that is
another issue as well.
It all amounts to having a three dimensional chess game every day coming to a draw with no real winner and hopefully no losers.
Kohl v United States
Federal projects have the right of eminent domain to procurement of property for the behalf of the public. 51 senators, half the house, the president, and the equivalent from Canada. Water removal would be minute (my opinion?) and seasonal. Love this discussion. Time to start lobbieing. Can we talk directly?
Thanks for commenting. jworr@fastmail.com
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
I understand each other concepts, but the solution is large desalinization units with Pacific Ocean as the source. It is much cheaper and keeps the midwest with their water while solving the Colorado River problem
I candidly think that Kohl would not even pass the smell test in Canada and jump out of the box as Canada cannot and will not even think about losing water via additional drainage and they would throw this idea in a ravine and bury it in 2 seconds with dynamite due to the following:
1. the need for water to maintain a 13 foot draft for the laker ships traveling on Lake superior that also need deep draft for loading and unloading ores and food stuffs and the ocean going freighters that use the locks.
2. the effect on needed drinking water use for the municipalities on the Lake Superior shorelines as they need to maintain
minimum water levels for the safe manufacture of drinking water and irrigation where it is permitted.
3. If additional cities begin to heat and cool their shoreline buildings using lake source cooling they will need water the
year round and the suction pipelines will have to stay at a certain draw depth to avoid/reduce the disturbance of any
nitrogen in the lake sediment. A good source of information on this is Lake source cooling for Cornel University as it
has created quite a controvery just as the Greenidge power plant in Yates county USA used to make bitcoin.
4. greater erosion on the American and Canadian side of Lake Superior due to ship wakes and the storms in winter.
Hundreds of miles of shoreline would be affected by the seasonal drawing of water from Lake Superior.
5. one has to think of this in a greater scheme of things as whatever one does in one area of the lake to draw down
massive amounts of water causes the following;
a. every acre foot taken out of Lake Superior per second will reduce the lake level over the entire surface area on the American side and the Canadian side and in drier years there will be a shortage of water from tributaries entering the lake.
b. water will continue to evaporate on Lake Superior
c. Any invasive fish or fish not native to the west would end up in lake mead unless a massive impoundment is created
and the lake water is screened and somehow removes anything that would swim or just travel to Lake Mead on the
water currents.
d. fine sand filter would have to occupy X square miles and operate as a siphon between sand filters
The water levels in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes Basin have to stay high enough to allow shipping to pass through the St. Lawrence river and the Eisenhower and Snell locks on the American side; On the Canadian side there is the Welland Canal with 8 locks(Seasonal Use); The Iroquois Lock(one lock); The Beauharnois lock with two locks; the Cote St. Catharine and St. Lambert locks
The other major ugly issues would be the asian carp, zebra mussels, quagga mussles, the Goby and the other trash fish that live in the Great Lakes now due to the dumping of european ballast water in Lake St. Clair. Added to that the sea lamprey would end up in the canal and Lake Mead.
There would be few if any happy campers working in the dried out water intakes of the hoover dam using shovels to scrape the tons of mussels off the concrete walls of the turbine inlets and using pipeline pigs and pipe scrapers to clean out the pipes within the dam as well as steam jennies to wash the walls of the pipe inlets and the inner pipeline.
I hope the Chicago ship and sanitary canal will be backfilled soon as dealing with the sea lamprey using a larvaecide in the finger lakes tributaries is working and I can just imagine the havoc they would create on the upper Missisippi, Ohio, and the Cayahoga if they end up there, if…………………………..
lzaharis@yahoo.com
Leon
I hope we are not splitting hairs. Superior water flow in may was around 1900 m3 per second. Good year Colorado is around 640. Those critters need not get to the west watershed. Colorado cities would love to get 50 m3 per second when the flow is abundant. Very clean water. In recent years property owners surrounding Huron and lake Michigan have complained about high water levels that have been dumped from lake Superior. Simultaneously we can redirect pest free waters from numerous water sources adjacent to the Continental divide.
Here in California the big rush is to kill the green to save water. This is an area that gets 12 to 15 in of rain regularly and yet we are encouraged not to cover the ground to save water? We are creating ovens of bare soil which are simply warming the globe
I’ve heard so much about proposed pipeline ideas from either The Great Lakes or The Mississippi, but what about the plausibility west of the Rockies. For instance, I remember reading of an idea of a pipeline from the Snake River to The Flaming Gorge Reservoir, which would be some 270 miles and wouldn’t require pumps since it’s downhill.
Wouldn’t something like that be more feasible than the much longer pipelines?
Good points all. Are you talking about the Snake River in Wyoming? There would be some pumping necessary from the Snake River Basin to the Green River Basin. Reclamation did a study years ago that included the option of moving Columbia River water to the S.W.
I like Abby Burk’s point, ““One of the big problems with bringing water from somewhere else is a false sense of security. When we live long distances from our water, we may not understand the limits of that supply or ecosystem–so conservation is less likely”
The problem is endless growth, more people, more land under cultivation. Folks need to live within their means and also let the rivers have some of their water back.
Thanks for commenting.
John Orr
http://coyotegulch.blog/
No matter what problems will exist in design, land aquisition by land purchase or eminent domain, infringement of existing water rights to cities and towns dependent on the existing water course the possibility of lawsuits outweigh the benefits.