HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NYT: A 600-mile pipeline ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:54 PM

NYT: A 600-mile pipeline from Missouri River to give water to Western states?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/science/earth/federal-plans-for-colorado-river-include-pipeline.html

Water Piped to Denver Could Ease Stress on River
By FELICITY BARRINGER



The federal government has come up with dozens of ways to enhance the diminishing flow of the Colorado River, which has long struggled to keep seven states and roughly 25 million people hydrated.

Among the proposals in a report by the Bureau of Reclamation, parts of which leaked out in advance of its expected release this week, are traditional solutions to water shortages, like decreasing demand through conservation and increasing supply through reuse or desalination projects.

But also in the mix, and expected to remain in the final draft of the report, is a more extreme and contentious approach. It calls for building a pipeline from the Missouri River to Denver, nearly 600 miles to the west. Water would be doled out as needed along the route in Kansas, with the rest ultimately stored in reservoirs in the Denver area.

Experts say the plan is reminiscent of those proposed in the middle of the last century, when grand and exorbitant federal water projects were commonplace ó and not, with the benefit of hindsight, always advisable.

30 replies, 2729 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply NYT: A 600-mile pipeline from Missouri River to give water to Western states? (Original post)
jsr Dec 2012 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2012 #1
elleng Dec 2012 #3
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2012 #5
elleng Dec 2012 #8
FarCenter Dec 2012 #2
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2012 #6
snooper2 Dec 2012 #28
amandabeech Dec 2012 #27
hunter Dec 2012 #4
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #7
taught_me_patience Dec 2012 #9
pscot Dec 2012 #10
Berlum Dec 2012 #13
janx Dec 2012 #30
silverweb Dec 2012 #11
Berlum Dec 2012 #12
madrchsod Dec 2012 #14
MadHound Dec 2012 #15
IDemo Dec 2012 #16
xmas74 Dec 2012 #17
hatrack Dec 2012 #18
a kennedy Dec 2012 #19
hedgehog Dec 2012 #20
leftyohiolib Dec 2012 #25
unhappycamper Dec 2012 #21
newfie11 Dec 2012 #22
hedgehog Dec 2012 #23
hedgehog Dec 2012 #24
Sienna86 Dec 2012 #26
janx Dec 2012 #29

Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:58 PM

1. First I've heard of it...

Mark my words........the water wars are coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:06 AM

3. They've been around for a while, CalPeg;

this is another version. (Recall Chinatown???)
AND, Missouri (and Mississippi) don't HAVE the water they had in the past, due to drought, so I don't see this as practical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:09 AM

5. I believe you, my dear elleng!

And yes, I sure do remember Chinatown. Great movie with a great lesson.

And even if Missouri and Mississippi had the water they used to have, they wouldn't want to give it up for this plan, even if they were well paid, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:19 AM

8. Probably right that they wouldn't want to give it up,

even for pay. And IMAGINE trying to figure out HOW to pay WHOM??? Not a problem I'd like to have to address!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:00 AM

2. Alternatively, move the people out of Arizona and southern California

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:10 AM

6. Good luck with that! Ain't gonna happen. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:17 PM

28. If they run out of water they won't have a choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:16 PM

27. Wouldn't it be amazing if people had to live where the water was?

And gee, look who has the water and lots of room:

Detroit

Cleveland

Buffalo

Rochester

Toledo

etc.

All the users have to do is make sure that the water is clean before it is returned to the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:08 AM

4. Pumping water uphill 5000 feet takes a lot of energy.

Dumb, expensive idea, especially if the pumps are powered by fossil fuels.

Anyways, when climate change induced drought gets worse it will be people moving, not water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:14 AM

7. There are years in which the Missouri has more than it can

handle (2011 was a bad flood year, for example). Might make sense if it can be drawn off and stored in years when there's enough flow, but obviously you can't take out so much in drier years that it affects the midwestern/southern states that rely on it for navigation, agriculture, etc. I guess crazier things have happened, but it would be a big effort to make it work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:23 AM

9. The rich will take the water - period.

If water is a scarce resource, why is it so cheap? Shouldn't we raise the rates to discourage waste?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:08 AM

10. The Missouri is pretty dry right now

The whole Mississippi basin is droughty. The climate guys think this may be a semi-permanent new climate regime. The Anasazi would understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:18 AM

13. Drought threatens barge traffic on Mississippi River

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121207/NEWS/312079964

Climate Change, which Republicans assure us (wink, wink) is not real, may throw a turd or two billion in the water pof this misbegotten idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:26 PM

30. Indeed they would. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:05 AM

11. Refine the idea.

We spend/subsidize billions to seek out, acquire, refine, and distribute oil/gasoline so that adequate amounts of it are in every corner of the nation. Ditto generation/distribution of electricity.

What's so far fetched about doing something similar with water?

Off-shore solar/tidal generating and desalination complexes are far less outrageous than off-shore oil/gas drilling sites, and pipelines for water would be nothing like the environmental hazard of oil and gas pipelines.

Yeah, it would cost money. So does drought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:15 AM

12. NAWAPA (R)

Sheer arrogant IDIOCY (R)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 05:59 AM

14. there`s not enough water in the Missouri river

someone is dreaming ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:50 AM

15. Yeah, let's screw farmers and endangered species downstream,

 

So that millions of humans can live in an environment that simply doesn't support that many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:22 AM

16. Los Angeles was planning on tapping into the Snake River (Oregon/Idaho) many years ago

That plan was shot down then as this one will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:22 AM

17. what a great way to screw the farmers.

We're already in a drought. Do this and water prices will skyrocket here. That means food prices will dramatically increase throughout the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:40 AM

18. This while downstream states on the Mississippi are howling for more releases for shipping?

Not likely.

The Missouri itself doesn't matter a damn for shipping, but the Mississippi sure does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:42 AM

19. The Great Lakes have had been mentioned as a source of water for other parts of the country as well

Water wars is right.....could get real nasty real fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:45 AM

20. Ain't goin' happen:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:11 AM

25. i thought something was passed to protect the water

The measure, the Great Lakes Compact, was negotiated by the eight states. A decade in the making, it is intended to ease longstanding fears that states outside the region, or even other countries, could tap into the lakes, possibly deplete them and do long-term damage to their basinís natural environment and economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/washington/24lakes.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:46 AM

21. A new pipeline? What could possibly go wrong? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:03 AM

22. another insane idea

no doubt the idiots haven't checked all the repercussions in this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:05 AM

23. Anyone want to take a guess as to the cost of pumping all that water uphill 600 miles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:09 AM

24. Maybe we should first tell people in Denver to say goodbye to their lawns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:08 PM

26. I wonder if the folks downstream from Kansas City know about this idea?

Isn't the Missouri River having trouble with barge traffic due to low flow?

We have some serious reckoning to do in this country with prioritizing our fresh water use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sienna86 (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:24 PM

29. You are thinking about the Mississippi--

but the Missouri flows into it, so yes, it would be affected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread