Because the Great Lakes are the largest fresh water lakes in the world, and actually considered inland seas because of their size, wouldn't constructing an aquaduct down through Texas prove beneficial to farmers in case of droughts or fires?
2007-05-01 08:22:41 · 5 answers · asked by cascioben 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
The closest thing to any plans was the Corp of Engineers did some work back in the late 1970's.
There was initial design work done to dam the Missouri River near Rulo Nebraska. Water would be diverted from this point to be delivered into the Colorado River basin. It was to be a mixture of pumping station, open channels and large pipes. Politics got in the way from every state involved from federal levels down to local governments, it died a quiet death.
In the mid 1980's, there was again a plan published that would take coal slurry from Wyoming and pump it to Louisiana using water from the Missouri River basin. It was considered cheaper than running coal trains for power plants. Once again, politics got involved at all levels and this died a quite death.
2007-05-01 12:06:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pipelines have been considered, but lemme tell you this: You're going to have to fight your way through a militia somewhere near the southern border of Michigan if you try. Just because the Great Lakes are big doesn't mean they're inexhaustable. We have seen dropping lake levels for some years now.
Tell them to stop building golf courses and planting big lawns in an area that should be nearly desert. Control the water waste problem first.
2007-05-01 09:59:55 · answer #2 · answered by dogsafire 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Texas is on top of a huge under ground aquifer. Draining the Great Lakes will just lead to new problems down the road. Like shipping problems. You should stop building in locations when you run out of resources.
2007-05-01 09:40:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your on top of the largest under gound water table . But dont take that to the bank.
2007-05-01 08:29:58 · answer #4 · answered by kboersch 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it's called the Mississippi River.
Sorry, that was snide. Your suggestion isn't feasible. It would be much more practical to make use of natural waterways.
2007-05-01 08:26:45 · answer #5 · answered by Alowishus B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋