I don't think anyone is talking about a 12' wide pipeline pumping water from the Mississippi River to Powell. Perhaps a variety of medium-high altitude diversions and (some pipe) in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico could supplement the Colorado drainage maybe 10-15%.
My Solution- Colorado River Levels
- Thread starter AzTacoma
- Start date
- Status
John P Funk
Escalante-Class Member
Elon's Boring Company is supposed to lower costs to 10% of normal bores in the 10'diameter range. It hasn't happened yet(and never will), but that would preclude most of the elevation difference. It would just be a much longer tunnel, and far more useful than a hyperloop.
John P Funk
Escalante-Class Member
Why don't we just reverse the direction of the diversions that are currently going the other way? Oh yeah, because the I-25 corridor has all of the political power, now I remember.
airford1
Well-Known Member
That is "The GLUP of California"
Seems to be a lot of politicalness involved, and a lot of doing things as they were 40-80 years ago even though everything has changed dramatically. I still can't wrap my head around California representing about 1% of the Colorado's drainage but sucking up like 80% of the water. In what universe is that even remotely equitable? In what world do archaic "water rights" agreements from yesteryear trump dire geosocial catastrophe?
JFRCalifornia
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Certainly the the 1922 agreement was a product of its time. And at that time, CA had the political muscle, and along with that, was the state among the seven that had the biggest population and most developed agriculture. In 1920, CA's population was 3.4 million. Doesn't seem like much now, but then that represented 59% of the total population of the 7 states (CA's population in 2020 is about 64% of the collective population of those states). And with the doctrine of prior appropriation affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1922, if it could use the water, it could take it. And that's what gave rise to the agreement--the other states' (especially Colorado's) fears that it would lose all the water to CA.
From that perceptive, it's amazing that in the end, CA only received 4.4 maf--or 29%--of the 15 maf the original agreement was based on. A better negotiator for CA could have gotten even more. And what's almost more amazing is that today, CA only uses about 4 maf, or 10% less than its legal allocation.
So while it's convenient to blame CA--and in the decades of the mid-20th century it definitely colored outside the lines by using more than it was entitled to--the facts are that it's not using anything as much as many people suspect. What is true, however, is that much of CA's allocation (3.2 maf of the total) goes to three very powerful irrigation districts who water all kinds of crops, some of which probably shouldn't be grown. The amount of water used for CA urban use--mostly going to the LAMWD--amounts to about 0.8 maf. It's significant, but not on the scale many people imagine.
But yes, these issues are all on the table as the states get together to update the agreement in the context of today's realities... look for something to shake out in 2026...
Capture that Rain water with a pipeline open on top , I can envision it!
No white water rafting exists in Glen Canyon. The fall of the river is so mild that often times river runners would row to keep moving at more than 2-3 mph. There used to be a few riffles at Trachyte and at Bullfrog, but nothing fast or thrilling. Pre-dam trips putting in at Hite would plan 6-7 days to get to Kane Wash without motor or rowing supplementation. Another full day down to Lee’s Ferry. Not sure a slow river flowing between 50 foot walls of sediment would be the most attractive trip to take if lake were drained. Side canyons would also be choked (or blocked) by sediment. Some of these might clean out with monsoon floods like we partially witnessed in CID in fall 2021, but it would take a mighty 125,000 cfs runoff to clean out main channel, which is a once in 50 year event. This was last seen in 83 and 84.
I don’t think you have to bring water from the Mississippi all the way to Lake Powell and the Southwest. But if you were able to bring water to Denver Metro and other areas that rely on water that gets diverted from the Western Slope and areas that ultimately end up in the Colorado River, it goes a long way to solving the problem. You don’t have to pump water all the way from the Mississippi to Lake Powell - just supply water to the Front Range and end the trans mountain diversions.
Hey Dillweed you should try reading the post. The guy said Mississippi
Dorado
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
The amount taken in intermountain withdrawals from the Colorado is relatively small, and would adding it back in would not make much of a change.
I am amazed how little people know about the widespread nature of the water shortage, it goes well beyond the Colorado. The Snake, Columbia, Platte, and Yellowstone Rivers are all overallocated and have no water to "spare" for pipeline dreams. I don't know how many times I have heard people here and other forums regarding the Southwest advocate for taking water from the Snake and piping it south. Last year the Snake River agricultural users in Idaho ran out of water before the end of the season. These are large farms and big business, as well as family farms. The reservoir system is intensively managed, and are near historically low storage levels, with a less than average snowpack in the mountains. The Snake River at Hells Canyon was running less than 8,000 CFS last summer, which is just a trickle in that big river. This year is looking worse, with less water in storage going in to the irrigation season. There is no quick engineering fix that will fill the Colorado system!
The entire West is dry, especially the areas you mentioned since 2020, but the Colorado drainage is particularly severe... deeper and longer than any area excluding maybe a small section of California. I'm not saying it'll be quick or that it'll fix the problem, but incorporating some higher elevation diverting/piping -while not a cure-all- can be one important piece of a comprehensive strategy.
According to Colorado River District - 500,000 acre feet of water diverted annually: “Most of the Colorado’s water is on the western side of the Continental Divide, while Colorado’s population lives predominantly along the Front Range on the state’s eastern slope. As a result, Colorado has dozens of water projects that divert water from the Colorado River basin across the Divide. These projects range from small projects diverting a few hundred acre feet of water per year to the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project, which diverts an average of more than 220,000 acre feet annually. On average, a total of roughly 500,000 acre feet of Colorado River Basin water is transmountain diverted annually in Colorado.”
That seems a like a very significant amount of water to me.
Eagle Rock
Well-Known Member
In a universe where equity is based on people and not on square miles. Otherwise, one could write "I still can't wrap my head around the Colorado Eastern Slope representing about 0% of the Colorado's drainage but sucking up like 500 KAF/year of the water."
except for the price involved you can probably get that same amount of water by conservation and building more recycling plants in places that are already using Colorado River water.
Gem Morris
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I watched a YouTube video today about a subsurface pipeline in the ocean taking water from the pacific NW. Very interesting. Easier than running a pipe overland. Intake in the mouth of rivers that run to the ocean. Turkey (the country) is apparently already doing this. Really??!! Turkey can figure this out and we’re sitting on our hands??!!
Dorado
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
The project you are citing from Turkey was done for political reasons. It can at a maximum deliver 61k acre feet a year, and is 50 miles long. 50% for drinking water, 50% for irrigation. Irrigates12,000 acres. Cost 500 million $US. Any pipelines to So Cal or the Colorado river would be 1,000 miles plus, not 50. The PNW would never let someone take the water, but even if they did the cost would be astronomical.
smoke
Well-Known Member
Same issue denver is at 5200 ft while the Missouri (as the Mississippi is even further) is at 1000’ in omaha quite an elevation change, not to mention the 600 miles.
also even denver pump some water after dillon reservoir through a tunnel under the continental divide, the amount is negligeable for lake powell elevation as the shortage in in MAF
The only solution is to adapt the outflow to the average of the past 20 years less 10%. This until the reservoir is back to 80% of its capacity. The reservoir was built for helping going through drought year which was the primary function of lake powell. Generating power was the second.
Last edited:
- Status