Divert Great Lakes water to the desert Southwest?

Question

An ongoing debate in the Great Lakes region is the proposed diversion of water to areas of the country that have grown well beyond the ability of local water sources to support them. And rather than build a couple desalinization plants on their own shoreline, they're fighting for the right to divert freshwater from thousands of miles away, with no apparent regard for the damage this would do to the local ecosystem.

Supporters say it's a way to make a few bucks, while addressing a real need in the southwest. They claim it's just like oil, a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. Global warming is just a crock, and they'll stop before it affects lake levels.

Opponents claim it's raping the environment and destroying an irreplaceable natural resource, not unlike stripping coral reefs. Lake levels have been dropping as average temperatures rise, and are projected to drop further, even without the diversion of water, affecting both the ecosystem and the local tourism economy.

Mountaingym- As a Top Contributor and person studying to be a geologist, you might consider doing some research- like punching "divert great lakes water" into any search engine- before essentially accusing me of lying, and using inflammatory words like "tripe" and "absurd". Check out http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/great_lakes_water_export.htm .

Check out any of the major newspapers in the Great Lakes region, or the recent U.N. report on the future of the Great Lakes basin. Water is already being diverted to the Mississippi via shipping channels; extend them a little further and you're in the plains states. China is prepared to fill freighters full of water "purchased" from Canada, and ship it halfway around the world for crop irrigation.

Is a 2,000 mile overland pipeline really that far-fetched? Especially with the largely voluntary international treaty that limits water extraction under constant attack by water bottlers and cash-strapped states.

Answer 1

I agree with you that it is a dumb idea. Not just because of the impact to the lakes, but in terms of a engineering project and maintenance it is a nightmare. There is no way that you are going to be able to maintain this pipeline and make this whole thing economically feasible.

Another thing to consider is that the lakes don't only belong to the US, Canada has them too. This would be a nightmare in terms of international legal action.

I would also like to point out that your desalinization example isn't exactly full proof. Since you seem to have a concern for the environment (which is a good thing) desalinization plants have their problems too with the local sea life. When you desalinize water that salt has to go somewhere....back in the ocean. Therefore you are limited to the amount of water you can desalinize because of how it affects the local sea environment.

The real key is to learn to deal with what you have. The Southwest has already drained their freshwater dry (mostly the Colorado) and they need to conserve what they have. If that means that the cities in that area have maximized their population, so be it.

Answer 2

this occasion is ridiculous. the international is roofed in water. Why do no longer we positioned supplies into turning ocean water into clean water? it fairly is executed now, that's merely very costly.Why no longer positioned money into inventing a thank you to do it for much less? additionally, why no longer use pipelines to pump water from reservoirs in some factors of the country to others? Why no longer?We do it with gasoline. think of if an area being flooded as Texas has been presently had the means to pump a number of that water to Florida and fill its depleted reservoirs. it could resolve 2 issues on the comparable time. As on your question I agree.The water should not be exported from the lakes.

Answer 3

I agree with you, but there are much more serious consequences of diverting water from the Great Lakes.

All that would do would create a disaster in the North and not do that much for the Southwest.

I know this is too much for politicians to understand, but the water in the Great Lakes is there for a reason, the geology of the area can support that much water. Because of a small thing called the Ice Age (something else politicians never studied), the top soil was scraped away leaving granite bases at the bottom of the Great Lakes.

The water couldn't be moved by a simple canal. It would take more concrete than the world has to handle the run-off and prevent flooding. I know politicians don't know about the Ice Age, but the reason the Great Lakes can handle so much water with flooding the surrounding areas is because glaciers from the Ice Age scrapped off most of the top soil and the Great Lakes have a granite substructure. Think of it this way, if you built your bathtup of loose sand instead of ceramic and filled it where would all the water go?

I also know politicians can't understand engineering, but it snows in the winter and the Great Lakes drain more than half the continent. So in order to divert the water, what would have to be done is to build a dam to stop the water from flowing eastward and diverting it southward. Collecting even a portion of the spring run off would result in great floods.

Because Lake Michigan is the southernmost lake, when the excess spring run off water needs someplace to go, the only place it could go is into lake Michigan flooding most if not all of the State of Michigan.

The Mississippi drains the rest of the continent east of the Rockies and it floods on a regular basis during spring run off. If the Mississippi can't handle the volume, what structure can man build that would be bigger than one of the largest rivers in the world?

Lastly, the underground aquafers that provide water for the farms in New York, Pennsylvannia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa comes from the Great Lakes. All those states use underground aquafer water to farm, which means farmers from those states would no longer have enough water to farm.

Solution, farm where the water is, not where it isn't. There are about a zillion studies that you can look at the United States government has made over the years that dryland farming makes no economic sense.

When it rains dryland farms soil hold the water for less than a day. In northern farms when it rains the land holds the water for about a month.

You could pour all the water in the Pacific Ocean through dryland soil and it wouldn't hold one more drop of water than it does now.

Lastly dryland farmers soak up more tax dollars in grants and subsidies per capita than any other group in America. They vote Republican and cash every cheque the government sends them. They have the gall to turn there noses up at the poor in the inner city while they themselves waste money on farms that never can be productive no matter how much money is poured into farms whose land can not support crops, except one, prairie grass that goes dormant during time of drought.

Dryland farmers were responsible for the dustbowl of the 1930's because they burned the prairie grass, planted crops that could not survive in that soil. Once the prairie grass was gone, there was no root structure to hold the soil.

Dryland farming is the greatest waste of money in United States. It's about time these people who say they want to stand on their own two feet get off the government gravy train and make do with the water they do get -- if they can.

Dryland farmers and their lobbies have taken more tax money that could be used for better purposes. Burning money or giving it to dryland farmers gives the same result -- it wastes the taxes paid by honest people who have real jobs and pay taxes for dryland farmers' fantasies and takes government services away from the people whose jobs provide tax money.

I know my post will be deleted, but dryland farmers are the most arrogant, poor-me, welfare bums in existance and they have the gall to call people in the inner cities "welfare bums.

Compared to the mythical single mother in the inner city, dryland farmers are the biggest crybaby leeches that suck off and waste more money to subsidize they trucks and air conditioned reapers they buy on the tax dollars from money from someone making minimum wage.

But what they do have is one of the most powerful lobbiests in Washington.

Answer 4

Too expensive. Not enough benefit, Southwest soil is not that great. All you get is more people moving into the cities (and planting lawns), which is of little or no benefit to the country as a whole.

Answer 5

Where do you come up with this tripe? I never have heard anything of the sort, and if I did I would do my best to have its proponents committed to the proper facilities. What are they going to do, put it in canals? What about the loses to evaporation? What about the infrastructure costs. I would say your question is absurd, but that term falls utterly short of the mark.

Answer 6

I know lake Erie is very salty and the water probably would'nt be very good for drinking of farming.