[vtsnowedin]

Again digging deeply into the archives of my mind I believe that transport is illegal because of covenants/treaties between the USA and Canada over the use of great lakes water.

It would be better to not fight nature but to retreat and allow nature to be nature. Live where it makes sense. Grow where it makes sense, like where there is abundant rainfall.

Treaties and legalities aside the logistics of transporting large volumes of water over the Rockies make such a project a non starter.
Meanwhile back in the mountains the snow pack is just a hair above the average for this day of the water year.
http://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercolorado/index.php

[Outcast_Searcher]

Back when my dad was young, he ran the river with a friend from Aspen to Lake Mead. There was no Lake Powell back then. They picked up a couple of other guys at Lee's Ferry, before they entered the Canyon. They did it on a surplus WWII pontoon bridge boat. The things that generation could do, by just throwing some things into the back of a car, amazing.

Yup. My dad, a mechanical engineer and WWII vet born in '25, built a house in Detroit one year, while working for IBM. Just as a goof. I got to see it during a side trip from a family reunion in Detroit in about '85. It was ugly, but it looked sound and had a family living in it a couple decades after it was built.

I was amazed. Even for a mechanical engineer -- no schooling or courses or formal education at all in architecture or home building -- he just built a house of his own design in his spare time. (He contracted out part of the work, like the foundation, but still...).

When clearing the trees to make room for a yard from the lot, he and some buddies got an old car engine to drive a big chain saw. They cooled it with water from a 55 gallon drum full of water. It would go from cool to boiling within 5 minutes, since no radiator being used (showing how much work a car radiator does re cooling, BTW). Just grab cheap things and make them work, vs. hiring experts...

When things broke around our house for 4 decades, he fixed LOTS of them, including making parts himself. Everything he did like that, to my knowledge (I live in that house now) still works great, EXCEPT for the electrical boxes he fashioned out of balsa wood. My electrician went NUTS when he saw those and we replaced them with proper steel boxes. (Hint: a primary reason for electrical boxes is to contain fires if something goes wrong at wire junctions. Balsa wood is the OPPOSITE of the material good to use for that).

ONE generation later, when there's mechanical work of any consequence to do for ANYTHING, I call a specialist for help. Period. Once cars went to fuel injection and platinum spark plugs, etc, my useful mechanical skills became pretty much irrelevant for getting useful things done of any consequence.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I recall reading a few years ago a tree ring study suggested strongly that the Colorado River was damned during a prolonged abnormall HIGH precipitation level. That trending over a few thousand years the basin had been considerably dryer and the fear was that this “normal” precipitation pattern was returning.

Thus the damns were doomed on a longer basis unless the new “wet” pattern was permanent.

It would seem the wet pattern was a blip.

But time will tell. Probably not smart to count on early 20th century percipitation rates for long term planning.

I look at this and think we should be moving heaven and earth to transport Great Lakes water to the West. It's the sort of project that is better begun now, just like we should have been researching more efficient solar from Jimmy Carter's time.

That won't happen unless the economics support it, given the cost. And such a thing would cost a LOT. In KY, several years ago, our primary water source moved from the KY river, about 20 miles from my city, to "the deep pools" under 50 miles away, for a much more robust and longer term solution. But it didn't happen until we were getting fairly FREQUENT significant low water situations in Lexington, my home city, and the project took a year or two as I recall and required a bond issue which I'm sure water users will be paying off over 20 to 30 years (as I recall). And that was to extend some piping under 50 miles to handle water for a few hundred thousand people max during periods of drought.

In coming decades, it's hard to predict the precise pattern desertification will take as the climate persistently shifts. So deciding to move lots of water to X at major expense, especially for the Rocky mountains, where it might just need to be redone for location tuning later -- I just don't see it until it is seen as a MUST. It's not like we don't already have PLENTY of EXPENSIVE things the public wants and needs to devote financial resources to.

[evilgenius]

I recall reading a few years ago a tree ring study suggested strongly that the Colorado River was damned during a prolonged abnormall HIGH precipitation level. That trending over a few thousand years the basin had been considerably dryer and the fear was that this “normal” precipitation pattern was returning.

Thus the damns were doomed on a longer basis unless the new “wet” pattern was permanent.

It would seem the wet pattern was a blip.

But time will tell. Probably not smart to count on early 20th century percipitation rates for long term planning.

I look at this and think we should be moving heaven and earth to transport Great Lakes water to the West. It's the sort of project that is better begun now, just like we should have been researching more efficient solar from Jimmy Carter's time.

That won't happen unless the economics support it, given the cost. And such a thing would cost a LOT. In KY, several years ago, our primary water source moved from the KY river, about 20 miles from my city, to "the deep pools" under 50 miles away, for a much more robust and longer term solution. But it didn't happen until we were getting fairly FREQUENT significant low water situations in Lexington, my home city, and the project took a year or two as I recall and required a bond issue which I'm sure water users will be paying off over 20 to 30 years (as I recall). And that was to extend some piping under 50 miles to handle water for a few hundred thousand people max during periods of drought.

In coming decades, it's hard to predict the precise pattern desertification will take as the climate persistently shifts. So deciding to move lots of water to X at major expense, especially for the Rocky mountains, where it might just need to be redone for location tuning later -- I just don't see it until it is seen as a MUST. It's not like we don't already have PLENTY of EXPENSIVE things the public wants and needs to devote financial resources to.

I tend to think that if this is true, the cost doesn't matter. It is one of those kind of costs you have to pay, or die. You are right, it is so expensive, though, that you more or less have to know if it is true before you make the decision. I hope you can see that if the project was built to transport that water it could pay for itself. It would have untold hydropower options, at every downhill that was steep enough to run a turbine. And getting the water to where it began the long flow downhill would be easy too, with all sorts of solar and wind farms providing the power to the pumps. It's really a vast stored energy battery that distributes water to places we need it as well. The biggest problem you might have would be understanding who owned what if the country fell apart politically.

[Newfie]

Evil,

That doesn’t work because for every foot of downfall you have to pump it up a foot. That does not include friction losses. It is a net energy looser.

[Tanada]

I recall reading a few years ago a tree ring study suggested strongly that the Colorado River was damned during a prolonged abnormall HIGH precipitation level. That trending over a few thousand years the basin had been considerably dryer and the fear was that this “normal” precipitation pattern was returning.

Thus the damns were doomed on a longer basis unless the new “wet” pattern was permanent.

It would seem the wet pattern was a blip.

But time will tell. Probably not smart to count on early 20th century percipitation rates for long term planning.

I look at this and think we should be moving heaven and earth to transport Great Lakes water to the West. It's the sort of project that is better begun now, just like we should have been researching more efficient solar from Jimmy Carter's time.

That won't happen unless the economics support it, given the cost. And such a thing would cost a LOT. In KY, several years ago, our primary water source moved from the KY river, about 20 miles from my city, to "the deep pools" under 50 miles away, for a much more robust and longer term solution. But it didn't happen until we were getting fairly FREQUENT significant low water situations in Lexington, my home city, and the project took a year or two as I recall and required a bond issue which I'm sure water users will be paying off over 20 to 30 years (as I recall). And that was to extend some piping under 50 miles to handle water for a few hundred thousand people max during periods of drought.

In coming decades, it's hard to predict the precise pattern desertification will take as the climate persistently shifts. So deciding to move lots of water to X at major expense, especially for the Rocky mountains, where it might just need to be redone for location tuning later -- I just don't see it until it is seen as a MUST. It's not like we don't already have PLENTY of EXPENSIVE things the public wants and needs to devote financial resources to.

I tend to think that if this is true, the cost doesn't matter. It is one of those kind of costs you have to pay, or die. You are right, it is so expensive, though, that you more or less have to know if it is true before you make the decision. I hope you can see that if the project was built to transport that water it could pay for itself. It would have untold hydropower options, at every downhill that was steep enough to run a turbine. And getting the water to where it began the long flow downhill would be easy too, with all sorts of solar and wind farms providing the power to the pumps. It's really a vast stored energy battery that distributes water to places we need it as well. The biggest problem you might have would be understanding who owned what if the country fell apart politically.

Not gonna happen, the Great Lakes are the insurance policy that keeps this part of the Midwest irrigated for crops to keep the rest of you people alive, even those who foolishly moved to the desert and now complain incessantly about the lack of water.

[vtsnowedin]

It will come down to the lowest cost alternative. An extreme case is Singapore which both recycles used water into "New water" and desalinizes sea water with reverse osmosis. One desalinization plant produces 30 million cubic meters of water a day.
Combined water bills from all sources top out at $3.69/ M^3 which is 1000 liters.
A suburban house in the desert Southwest could probably manage with 1M^3 per day (264 gallons) so would have a water bill of $109 a month.

[evilgenius]

Evil,

That doesn’t work because for every foot of downfall you have to pump it up a foot. That does not include friction losses. It is a net energy looser.

Not if you use renewables to pump it up hill. Those fields are doing what otherwise? What you are doing is storing the energy at elevation. How many turbines more of downhill are there than that one uphill portion too? It is about geography and efficiency.

[Newfie]

Evil,
If that worked out efficiently you would see “gravity batteries” water is pumped uphill to store it and its potential energy.

[vtsnowedin]

Let's ignore elevations and pumping requirements for a bit and just look at the cost of the pipe. West end of Lake Superior to California's central valley is straight line 1600 miles. Now assume your installed pipe costs just $125 per foot complete in place.
1600 X 5280 X $125=$1,056,000,000 so 1.06 trillion just for the pipe before you have bought any R.O.W or built the first pumping station.
Not even close to being practical.

[evilgenius]

Not practical, unless you have to have it. I already said the conditions under which the decision makers would have to labor. To pull the trigger, you would need more than just fluctuations to the status quo. You need real breaks from some so many year average.

Are we still thinking like climate deniers here? You know, "These water levels will fix themselves. We don't need to care about the West."

[vtsnowedin]

Not practical, unless you have to have it. I already said the conditions under which the decision makers would have to labor. To pull the trigger, you would need more than just fluctuations to the status quo. You need real breaks from some so many year average.

Are we still thinking like climate deniers here? You know, "These water levels will fix themselves. We don't need to care about the West."

But they do not "have to have it" because there are cheaper alternatives.
An extreme case would be shipping water by rail from Lake superior which would come to some 30 cents / gallon at current rates per ton/mile. Of course you could find a closer source , perhaps the Missouri river above Great falls Montana or any one of the tributaries of the Mississippi.
Not cheap enough to use for Ag. irrigation but for cities and suburbs they will pay it or do without.

[Tanada]

Not practical, unless you have to have it. I already said the conditions under which the decision makers would have to labor. To pull the trigger, you would need more than just fluctuations to the status quo. You need real breaks from some so many year average.

Are we still thinking like climate deniers here? You know, "These water levels will fix themselves. We don't need to care about the West."

But they do not "have to have it" because there are cheaper alternatives.
An extreme case would be shipping water by rail from Lake superior which would come to some 30 cents / gallon at current rates per ton/mile. Of course you could find a closer source , perhaps the Missouri river above Great falls Montana or any one of the tributaries of the Mississippi.
Not cheap enough to use for Ag. irrigation but for cities and suburbs they will pay it or do without.

Much closer than that, you put a pump station at the mouth of the Columbia River in Washington state and use trains to haul the water that would have flowed into the Pacific down the coat to the desert instead of letting nature disperse it in the sea. Or you build a pipeline along the railroad right of way and pump even more water south right before it would become contaminated with sea water. It isn't like these plans are out of the box thinking but for some reason people thing the Great Lakes are an infinite water supply and skip right over the hundreds of rivers large and small that feed into the Pacific. Or even say the Rio Grande near its mouth into the GOM, nothing illegal about gathering that water right before it enters the sea and shipping it along the southern Pacific ROW to water lands west of the Rio Grande valley in New Mexico.

[vtsnowedin]

It is my impression that every bit of water flowing west from the continental divide is contracted for in some way down to minimum flows for anadromous fish migrations.
That is way I suggested something from the Mississippi's drainage basin.
But certainly what ever the closest, and therefor cheapest, source is will probably be developed next.
And it certainly will not be Lake superior.

[evilgenius]

I considered the Columbia River idea. The scale isn't as great, but it is like this. And the Mississippi is good too. I said the Great Lakes because they are a good way to make the point, gravity storage could work, and we might solve some water problems. My bias toward the Great Lakes is only to make a point.

I like this kind of topic because it shows us how far many of us are willing to go to save what we have, or not. Every time someone points out one of the flaws of it, or the high costs, I think about whether it is a good idea again. It has to be true that some things are just too expensive, but I don't think this is, assuming it meets the conditions to do it in the first place. It offers enough in return, not just that it would save some region or other. I think it is plain that it could run into cost overruns, and become a true white elephant, though.

[Newfie]

The Mississippi has low flow periods when shipping is constrained. You would have to build reservoirs to hold the water. But then isn’t that what Lake Mead is? Perhaps the FIRST thing to do is to restrict or shut down the electrical generation and use that water for human and ag alone. It is cheaper to import electricity than water.

Our water difficulties run far beyond the Columbia as we are depleting aquifers across the great plains.

It is simply a matter of time.

[vtsnowedin]

It is cheaper to import electricity than water.

.

Excellent point.

[yellowcanoe]

The Mississippi has low flow periods when shipping is constrained. You would have to build reservoirs to hold the water. But then isn’t that what Lake Mead is? Perhaps the FIRST thing to do is to restrict or shut down the electrical generation and use that water for human and ag alone. It is cheaper to import electricity than water.

The water taken from Lake Mead for hydroelectric generation is used further downstream. Stopping the electrical generation would result in the share of the Colorado flow allocated to users downstream being "stolen" by users that draw water directly by pipeline from the reservoirs. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado is consumed before it flows across the border into Mexico.

[vtsnowedin]

The Mississippi has low flow periods when shipping is constrained. You would have to build reservoirs to hold the water. But then isn’t that what Lake Mead is? Perhaps the FIRST thing to do is to restrict or shut down the electrical generation and use that water for human and ag alone. It is cheaper to import electricity than water.

The water taken from Lake Mead for hydroelectric generation is used further downstream. Stopping the electrical generation would result in the share of the Colorado flow allocated to users downstream being "stolen" by users that draw water directly by pipeline from the reservoirs. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado is consumed before it flows across the border into Mexico.

You are correct in that but at some point there will not be any water to send down stream at all and running it through the turbines will become a moot point.

[Newfie]

You can optimize the FLOW for power production or to support crop growth or to support human population.

As the flow decreases you drop off one or the other and are eventually left with one.

Human consumption wants a fairly even withdrawal all year long.
Ag wants to support seasonal crop growth.
Power wants to support different seasonal demands.