As an engineer, here's how I look at the idea of pumping water from Mississippi to the West
- Thread starter Liftedtacoma4x
- Start date
- Status
nzaugg
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
My understanding is that the reservoir level issues in ND and SD are due to management of the reservoir by the Corps of Engineers to facilitate shipping in the Missouri. Is that not the case? I don't see how you easily take water from a system that is also short when it is being generally managed in order to supply a base flow for all seasons.
Jan Hertzen
Well-Known Member
When I was born in 1948 there were 10 million people in California. Water for Northern California came from underground wells, Lake Shasta, Hetch Hetchy, the Delta, and the other SIerra rivers. Southern California got its water from underground wells, the Owens Valley, and Lake Havasu via the Colorado River Aquaduct. What has changed since then? The north got Lake Oroville, and the south got the California Aquaduct from the Delta. That's what we have now. That is why I suggested that we seriously investigate the possibility of transporting water from a large source such as the Missouri/Mississippi Rivers, or Lake Superior/Lake Michigan, or whatever may be a better source. Conserving water by using what we have more responsibly won't do it. Agriculture uses immense amounts of water to feed the world and keep our economy going; we need to continue getting them what they need: more water. I still think the solution is to get that water to the head of the Colorado River up the hill from Boulder in Lake Granby. I know the elevation change is drastic, but we need to take drastic measures. And what a project it would be because the elevation change is about 6900 feet from the Missouri River to Lake Granby, with most of it stepping up the Rockies to the lake. Are there large sources of water in Canada that could feed Flaming Gorge?
If your goal is to give water to farmers Instead of spending VAST amounts of time and money moving water to them why not simply move them to the water? Seems slightly cheaper.
iamaverb
Active Member
In the midwest stop the corn ethanol subsidies and plant crops other than corn, and phase out farming in the desert.
Phillbo
Escalante-Class Member
The soil is different....
First thing my wife said but how hard can it be to change farming conditions vs how hard WILL it be to keep getting water
John P Funk
Escalante-Class Member
It's not just soil difference. It's also the extended growing season and the extra sun you get because it doesn't rain(weird, right?). Solar farms are placed in the southwest for good reason. Farming the desert has both it's costs and it's benefits.
Does the water cost outweigh the benefit? What is it costing to keep these farms going vs what could we gain by moving them to a less arid environment. I've gotta think it will cost BILLIONS to keep doing what we're doing as opposed to picking up and putting down somewhere a little more rainy. But, like most everybody else these days, I'm not a farmer.
except for the problem that for every gallon of ethanol you don't burn you are instead going to be burning gasoline which has to come from somewhere (which means the price of gasoline would be higher than it is). even if i don't particularly like it and would be much happier if we weren't doing this, it ends up as a likely net positive for the short term. in the longer term, electric cars will end up being a much better option. in the middle where we are at now every bit of electric generation that is clean is a gain for the planet.
to get back to the Lake Powell aspect of this there are certain amounts of water that are currently being used for power plants and that could be thousands of acre feet.
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Why do we farm where the climate is dry and sunny? Because people like the products that are grown there, and those crops are not easily grown elsewhere. Remove the demand, and that would change what is grown and where.
Just to illustrate the point a little bit, here's a handful of crops that are grown in California, and that state's percentage of the total grown in the USA:
Almonds (82%)
Pistachios (99%)
Walnuts (99%)
Grapes (99%)
Strawberries (90%)
Tomatoes (90%)
Oranges (80%)
Avocados (90%)
Artichokes (99.9%)
Even peaches, which you don't normally think of as a CA product... well, CA grows 73% of them in the country...
Just to illustrate the point a little bit, here's a handful of crops that are grown in California, and that state's percentage of the total grown in the USA:
Almonds (82%)
Pistachios (99%)
Walnuts (99%)
Grapes (99%)
Strawberries (90%)
Tomatoes (90%)
Oranges (80%)
Avocados (90%)
Artichokes (99.9%)
Even peaches, which you don't normally think of as a CA product... well, CA grows 73% of them in the country...
A daily ounce of almonds is a staple of my diet. Don't do the other stuff on the regular, mainly a protein bar/whey protein shake guy. Even naturally occurring sugar I shy away from. But I need my almonds. SO there's that. Hopefully we can come up with a solution and not like what Dennis Quaid did for his almond orchard in Goliath!!! Boy was THAT series on topic!!!
John P Funk
Escalante-Class Member
Or increase the cost of water to reflect relative "availability".
nzaugg
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
And this really is the point. Add in Arizona and that is essentially where all the winter vegetables for the country come from. If we stop sending water and irrigating those fields, we wind up importing all that produce from Mexico, Peru, Chile, etc. The climate elsewhere is not conducive to this growth unless we shift to hydroponics or warehoused agriculture, which would be massively lower in water consumption but much higher in energy consumption.
nzaugg
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
For certain crops, it is not going to be possible to move them. However, there are significant water consuming crops that could go elsewhere. Arizona has the four C's (Citrus, Cotton, Cattle, Copper) and three of those C's could/should be elsewhere. That is because there is a fifth C (Climate) that is different than it was when the first three were established. The first three C's are huge water users and each of these C's can be grown elsewhere without a noticeable market impact except to the farmers/ranchers currently producing the crop/cattle if the transition is done properly. The winter vegetable situation is a whole different matter though and it is not easily replaceable. I suppose we could all go back to frozen/canned fruits and vegetables all winter like they did up until the 1950s.
John P Funk
Escalante-Class Member
Central planning of agricultural production has never "worked", but instead has caused the deaths of millions in Russia, China, Ukraine, Laos, etc. I think it's best to let Adam Smiths "Invisible Hand" do its work. The best solution would be to move water into a free market system and let costs/profits drive the decisions made by farmers/municipalities/consumers. Produce costs will necessarily rise as a result of water scarcity and municipalities purchasing more water as they grow, this should make imported produce more economically viable. Water costs have been held artificially low due to the "guarantee" of 7.5 maf to lower basin states, the reality of the situation must set in at some point, right? Bottom line, cost of water will need to rise(reducing demand) or more snow will need to fall(increasing supply) if we ever want to see Powell or Mead fill again. We've been using the modern monetary theory of economics for 100 years in regards to western water, and that has got to change.
P.S. Creative Destruction is never pleasant, but is necessary. I hate to see multi-generational farms lay fallow, but reality cannot be denied any longer.
P.S. Creative Destruction is never pleasant, but is necessary. I hate to see multi-generational farms lay fallow, but reality cannot be denied any longer.
Greg Archer 71
Active Member
Privatizing water is a no-no. When a company gets a hold of a natural resource such as water its first concern is to secure investment via shareholders. Its second consideration is to make a profit. Its third objective is to deliver a dividend to the investors. The fourth thing on the list is to spend as little as possible 'upgrading infrastructure' whilst creaming the 'client' for the services they've no intention of supplying. As they say - better the devil you know.
- Status