[BBMW]

Given that Lake Mead was full was as late as the 1980s, this isn't correct. I remember the first time I visited the dam, the water was lapping over the edges of the spillways.

But precipitation can be cyclical, and the west is in a down cycle.

Water is never going to be moved east to west over, under, or around the Rockies. I could see moving it north to south from the PNY. But that would start a war with WA and OR.

Originally Posted by 212david51

In light of the error in calculating the water supply in the 1930s, the error being a higher estimate of available water vs what was correct, you can not rely on it "returning to normal" because normal is too low for the needs. So you are faced with two choices. 1. Reduce the use to fit the current supply. or. 2. Increase the supply to what is needed. Over on the Mississippi they have to dump about 25% of the flow into Lake Pontchartrain so right there you can grab more water that is not being used. You would have to build supply pipes to move it where it is needed. OR. You build desalination plants for drinking water. OR do both.

[butterflybird]

I don't know what the ultimate solution will be, but every time people say that a particular project in this country "can't be done", or "it's too expensive" or "we don't know how to do it", I always remind them that we put men on the moon in 1969. That usually puts a very quick end to the "we can't do it" discussion.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by butterflybird

I don't know what the ultimate solution will be, but every time people say that a particular project in this country "can't be done", or "it's too expensive" or "we don't know how to do it", I always remind them that we put men on the moon in 1969. That usually puts a very quick end to the "we can't do it" discussion.

Can you give an example of a project that wasn't completely useless?

[butterflybird]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Can you give an example of a project that wasn't completely useless?

The point i'm making isn't about whether a particular project is or isn't "useless"...that's always subjective and debatable depending on who you're talking to....the point i'm making is that this notion of "can't do" or "too expensive" or "impossible" or whatever the excuse is about doing or not doing a big project in this country seems pretty ridiculous when compared to a monumental project like putting men on the moon - and that was over 50 years ago without all the technology we have today. We did that, and we can do equally impressive things if the "higher ups" want to do it. As others have pointed out, the money and manpower and "can do" always seems to magically appear if a particular segment of society wants it done. And when we're talking about potentially running out of water for millions of people, believe me....a solution WILL be found and can be found when the elites decide to do it. And if they decide NOT to do it, it won't be because of lack of money or manpower, it will be for some other agenda.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by butterflybird

The point i'm making isn't about whether a particular project is or isn't "useless"...that's always subjective and debatable depending on who you're talking to....the point i'm making is that this notion of "can't do" or "too expensive" or "impossible" or whatever the excuse is about doing or not doing a big project in this country seems pretty ridiculous when compared to a monumental project like putting men on the moon - and that was over 50 years ago without all the technology we have today. We did that, and we can do equally impressive things if the "higher ups" want to do it. As others have pointed out, the money and manpower and "can do" always seems to magically appear if a particular segment of society wants it done. And when we're talking about potentially running out of water for millions of people, believe me....a solution WILL be found and can be found when the elites decide to do it. And if they decide NOT to do it, it won't be because of lack of money or manpower, it will be for some other agenda.

There is always a way to do the projects, given enough money. The issue is whether we should do the projects. What are the potential bad effects of sending Mississippi water West, starting with more damage to the Gulf of Mexico. Let's start first with stopping the farming of water intensive crops like alfalfa, cotton, and rice in places that do not have enough water to grow those crops. Start charging farms the actual cost of water. Come up with better irrigation technologies and stop just pumping water from canals into fields, where much of it just evaporates.

Putting men on the moon was simple compared to moving millions of acre feet of water through the Rocky Mountains.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

The NIMBYs might try to fight these things but their arguments against using the IHS and railroads would have little standing in court.

I'm not sure about the NIMBYs, but the anti-all-human-development tree-huggers always seem to find a sympathetic judge and legislature.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by robr2

So would the LVVWD be footing the bill for a 2,000 mile pipeline from upper midwest?

It would probably be cheaper to build a pipeline from the Pacific to LV and desalinate it there.

A pipeline is underestimating the scale of the problem. Instead, think about a canal that is, oh, 100 meters wide and 100 feet deep.

[cunningja]

IMO, Nevada has been extremely successful with water conservation, and remains well below their allotment from Lake Mead. California and Mexico agriculture need to figure out how to lower consumption, which I believe will be the hardest part of the equation.
I also believe Arizona will struggle to cut consumption by 21%, which I believe is the latest agreement.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

A pipeline is underestimating the scale of the problem. Instead, think about a canal that is, oh, 100 meters wide and 100 feet deep.

I think your guesses are wildly too high. The All American Canal is typically about 60 meters wide and 6 meters deep. The California Aqueduct is typically about 12 meters wide and 9 meters deep,

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by WRM20

There is always a way to do the projects, given enough money. The issue is whether we should do the projects. What are the potential bad effects of sending Mississippi water West, starting with more damage to the Gulf of Mexico. Let's start first with stopping the farming of water intensive crops like alfalfa, cotton, and rice in places that do not have enough water to grow those crops. Start charging farms the actual cost of water. Come up with better irrigation technologies and stop just pumping water from canals into fields, where much of it just evaporates.

Putting men on the moon was simple compared to moving millions of acre feet of water through the Rocky Mountains.

I wonder if anyone was thinking clearly when we decided to farm the desert, without planning for adequate water for both the crops and people who would be attracted to the area. In Israel, at least, they built in waste water recycling and desalination as well as water pipelines and canals. See Let There Be Water: Israel’s Solution for a Water-Starved World by Seth M. Siegel.