|
|
Technical Challenge - RonO's Ramblings
| May. 9th, 2007 10:48 am Technical Challenge I have a technical challenge that is probably well beyond our current technology:
We need to find a way to relocate the excess water from the Missouri river to where it can be used in California and Florida to put out the wild fires. The excess then can be stored in the various reservoirs in the western US that have dropped during the recent dry spells or pumped into aquifers that have been largely depleted.
This is not a new idea, even for me. Nearly every time we get major flooding in one area and dry spells or wild fires in others, the same thought occurs to me. 6 comments - Leave a comment   | |
You haven't been listening to the Midwestern politicians stridently defending their water from the folks who would like to start building the pipeline over the Rockies, have you?
I mean, Illinois has taken grief for taking water from Lake Michigan, and then sending the effluent down into the Mississippi basin (via the Chicago and Illinois Rivers) rather than back into Lake Michigan.
Water-rights folks closely examine all politicians in so-called border states (Colorado, Kansas, especially Missouri and Arkansas) to see if they have any tendency to want to sell that water out west. Currently, the governor of Michigan is pondering shutting down some bottled-water companies, arguing that since we don't allow export of water via pipeline, we shouldn't allow it via little-plastic-bottles, either. Her attitude is that if you want to take advantage of Michigan's water, you should move to Michigan.
I'm surprised you aren't already aware of this. It's a seriously hot political potato.
Replying to both of the replies:
Growing up in New Mexico, I am well aware of how nasty water politics can be. I doubt that any water battle around here can get nearly as nasty as the ones between the dry states.
Obviously if the technology allowed us to move flood waters to dry areas, we'd be replacing a technical problem with a political one.
It isn't ever going to leave the watershed, except by the current natural system. Battles are regularly fought over Great Lakes water. It should become even more intense - Lake Superior's average temp has jumped quite dramatically over the last few decades, leading to accelerated evaporation and lake levels are approaching records lows.
No one is going to be shipping lake water anywhere.
Replying to both of the replies:
Growing up in New Mexico, I am well aware of how nasty water politics can be. I doubt that any water battle around here can get nearly as nasty as the ones between the dry states.
Obviously if the technology allowed us to move flood waters to dry areas, we'd be replacing a technical problem with a political one.
 | | From: |  mbcrui |
|---|
| Date: | May 10th, 2007 12:39 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I'd be happy if you could ship some of that excess missouri water up here, As roxanne and dale said, Superior is at a record low, and we're in high to very high fire danger. We've had a forest fire already and it's spring! Summer is going to be bad.
California doesn't need water. California needs less farming in the desert. Recreating the Dust Bowl in the Midwest isn't going to make a big difference in Death Valley. Moving water across watershed boundaries doesn't make the planet more livable.
|
|
