After WW 2 Arizona's water table for large production farm wells was @350'. As the number of farms grew, the wells got deeper. Unlike here in the mountains where the discharge from wells is recharged every year from the snows and rains, Arizona deserts don't recharge the same. The water under the desert had been dated to the last ice age's great meltdown. Now irrigation wells are beyond a 1,000' and getting deeper. In one area particularly populated with pecan farming, so much water has been pumped from the ground, that the ground itself has settled over 1' for miles. The only solution this poor un-educated country boy can come up with is to declare war, and take no prisoners, on the oceans. Turn salt water into a viable alternative and use the power of the ocean waves to pump the desalinated ocean water to nearby reservoirs and over the Sierra-Nevada mountains and make Death Valley a huge freshwater lake. With the suns heat, great evaporation will happen, thus seeding clouds to rain across the west. Everybody needs a fantasy.
The latest on the Colorado River water crisis
- Thread starter LVSteve
- Start date
The California Acqueduct loses 63 billion gals of water a year due to evaporation alone. For decades 'they' have discussed covering the primary channels with HD plastic, and for the last decade covering it with the solar panels, providing solutions for two vital problems.
Nothing get done anymore, however, as we now live in a society too bogged down in a polarizing social war.
Nothing get done anymore, however, as we now live in a society too bogged down in a polarizing social war.
Last edited by a moderator:
A simple way to get CA to be concerned about the water they use. Have the states which are upstream from the places CA pulls the water from the Colorado River draw off all the water they need and leave CA with just a trickle of water. Perhaps that will get CA attention.
OP
LVSteve
Member
Simple, yes. Practical or legal, not so much.
Which brings to mind another old saying "ya can't drink oil". Imo there will be no solution till drastic use cuts. Last time i looked there is a whole other set of concerns for not letting waste water leave a limited size basin.
Your points are well taken. Every time we drive I-5 we comment on the open canals and evaporation.
The 'they' in charge of the Calif Central Valley Project is the Bureau of Reclamation. So if any sort of in-system water conservation system, such as covering the canals, is going to be done, it will have to be the feds, not the state of Calif, that will do it.
Assuming the benefits to be derived for California from such conservation, the first question that comes to my mind is how such an expensive project funded by all the taxpayers will play out in the court of public opinion.
Seemingly everybody likes to hate Calif. If we look at this forum as a microcosm of the population as a whole, look at how much criticism is directed at Calif in just this thread. Countless times I have seen the mods here precautioning posters to cease with the cheap shots against Calif and (thus) its citizens.
With a government in Calif that appears to prioritize eliminating the 2A and virtue signalling along with its air of superiority and condescension in so doing, much of the animosity directed to Calif is richly deserved (even though I am a resident).
But, given those circumstances, how Calif has gained and keeps that reputation, I just don't see the rest of the county becoming inclined towards assisting Calif at all.
Calif's governance has put itself in this situation, no one else and no other entity.
I do not see a way out for Calif because for so long the state has failed to initiate steps it could take to mitigate the effects of drought.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
LVSteve
Member
I can easily insert Nevada into that passage. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is constantly riding ours butts on TV about saving water, showing pictures of the Lake Mead "bath ring" and old sunken boats sticking out of what was the bottom of the lake. However, I've never heard of the standing up at a planning meeting and saying, "Sorry, but we must object based on the state of our water supply". So, are we running out of water or not?
Arguably, the SNWA cannot object to development as NV is still using way under its allocation. But, that allocation uses out of date information that was probably incorrect. Nobody in any of the seven basin states wants to hear that as it immediately implies cuts, and cuts mean less fodder for the Great God Growth. Not. Acceptable.
Oh, and just to throw in one more wrinkle, there is a treaty with Mexico on Colorado water that must be considered. As if having the Bureau of Reclamation on the case wasn't bad enough, you may have to involve the State Department. That cannot be good.
charlie sherrill
Member
I live in a state that is rich in water and poor in most other things. I still like it here so you Yankees don't come piling in here like you're doing in a lot of other Southern states. I still think that pumping water from flooding eastern rivers to western reservoirs during spring flooding would probably help in several ways. First, the reservoirs need to be constructed. Second, only pump the excess from the east that causes flooding and Gulf fisheries damage. Every time the Bonne Carre (sp?) Spillway in Louisiana is opened it saves large areas from being flooded, but sometimes not all, and fisheries from Florida to Texas, including my own state of Mississippi suffer significant damage. Oil and gas production are also affected resulting in higher prices. The flooding happens most years, but not all. I think this system can be constructed for way less than what the Interstate Highways coast and will pay for itself in many ways. The water only has to be pumped halfway and that is uphill. The rest of the way is downhill.
riverrat38
US Veteran
"The water only has to be pumped halfway and that is uphill. The rest of the way is downhill."
And, on the downhill run, there is a siphoning effect that helps to draw water up the hill, reducing the required pump size. And, if the final destination is lower than the source, power can be generated by hydroelectric means. Think of this as a hydraulic counterbalance.
73,
Rick
And, on the downhill run, there is a siphoning effect that helps to draw water up the hill, reducing the required pump size. And, if the final destination is lower than the source, power can be generated by hydroelectric means. Think of this as a hydraulic counterbalance.
73,
Rick
I agree entirely. I always thought that a series of pipelines following alongside the interstate highway system would be a viable way to transport the excess water from the flooding Mississippi river. And since the number one cause for home insurance settlement is to water damage, that insurance companies could kick in some construction money. I deal in water engineers in my business, and they scoff at the idea as being either impactable or impossible.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,131
- Reaction score
- 47,023
Want to keep discussing this?
If so, stay away from politics and stay on this topic.
If so, stay away from politics and stay on this topic.
HIGH pressure involved.
To raise water 1000 feet would require slightly over THIRTY times atmospheric pressure at lower input.
Nearly 450 PSI at lower end.
Ask a submariner about pressures at depths.
Might use a stair stepping series of pumps each feeding an open resevoir at its upper level.
The horsepower required to move the water.
Think of water flow in Gallons Per Minute ...
Possible - probably.
Practical - questionable.
Affordable - EXPENSIVE!
Bekeart
To raise water 1000 feet would require slightly over THIRTY times atmospheric pressure at lower input.
Nearly 450 PSI at lower end.
Ask a submariner about pressures at depths.
Might use a stair stepping series of pumps each feeding an open resevoir at its upper level.
The horsepower required to move the water.
Think of water flow in Gallons Per Minute ...
Possible - probably.
Practical - questionable.
Affordable - EXPENSIVE!
Bekeart
OP
LVSteve
Member
Good luck keeping the rise you need to get over the Continental Divide to only 1000' even with tunnels.
Countrycuz
Member
The Mississippi river was low much of last year. Barges were having problems with the shallow depth. A pipeline would have to move a massive amount of water in a short time during flood stage to make an impact.
Lake Michigan water already goes to Mississippi River
Lake Michigan water already goes to Mississippi River
Bekeart
Lake Michigan water already goes to Mississippi River
Bekeart
Wait until the effect of the central US groundwater depletion gets the notice it deserves.
The "S" will really start to fly.
bigwheelzip
Absent Comrade
Before it reaches the sea, gather up the water melting off glaciers and ice sheets into a super-tanker, and take it to CA. Can carry up to about 250 acre-feet. The Colorado river supplies CA the equivalent of about 17,000 super tanker loads of water. Easy peasey.
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Last edited:
bluetopper
Member
I think the answer to all these problems is a pipeline from the Mississippi River in south Louisiana to Arizona and California. Yes once in a while the mighty Mississippi gets low but not very often at all. Floods are more of a problem for citizens and commerce along it than drought is. Water from half the continent funnels to it then out into the gulf.
There's plenty of it, it just needs to be harnessed.
There's plenty of it, it just needs to be harnessed.
I really don't think y'all realize how hard it is to move that much water that far. And as for doing away with flooding...how much water CAN you move...not nearly enough to prevent even flooding I have seen near the Mississippi. We are talking trillions of gallons. Where would you put it after you got it to a destination? And with the incompetence of the waterboards and the people that work for them...how much loss to evaporation in California?? I was talking to the irrigation district "engineer" locally and he said they had a pipe broken that was squirting water at least 50 ft. I remarked...well that's hydraulics for you. He looked at me like I had 2 heads...said..hydraulics?? I'm talking about water. Seriously especially as a way to stop flooding...I doubt it can be done...and to be honest...to transfer water to a place that doesn't have a clue about responsible use of the water they have would not only be ridiculous but not a responsible use of the taxpayers monies...oh and don't forget..taking the floodwaters at the Mississippi's terminus...means you've already had millions...no billions of gallons or more of water flood the upper reaches of that river. or any other flooded river systems. Most floods ARE localized you know...at least in the original state. This isn't a political discussion...Just a common sense look at moving all the water y'all are talking of. And...even though it doesn't seem like it would be a problem, doing away with flooding would also have damaging ecological concerns
Nuclear powered desalination plants along the Pacific coast. Say 30.
That's really the only possibly practical solution.
How 1,500 Nuclear-Powered Water Desalination Plants Could Save The World From Desertification
That's really the only possibly practical solution.
How 1,500 Nuclear-Powered Water Desalination Plants Could Save The World From Desertification
Last edited:
