Nationwide Water Piping and Ditch System

Ron,

Lay off the weed.

If you got $100 trillion USD and were told to proceed today, the permitting/environmental impact study/law suits alone would take 10 years. Assuming the design was complete_{(fat chance)} construction could begin in 2021.

It took 20 years to complete the Central Arizona Project. Ron, the CAP is totally inside Arizona. A single state, with much public land. So, by 2041 you could have the nationwide distribution system in place. Need I go on?

I didn't say it would be easy, or would be done in twenty or fifty years. I believe it needs to be an ongoing goal in those areas where it is feasible. I used to live next to a ditch in the Sierra Foothills. It carried water from a small river up and down hills through pipe siphoning to Auburn California. The Panama Canal was not easy. Many men died and it took many years.

When I was about 6, my dad worked for the USFS in Sequoia National Park.

I climbed on some of those aqueducts that carried water off the mountain.

They had the advantage of gravity to do the work.

Keep dreaming.

Obviously you have to use gravity, but I lived right next to a five foot pipe that siphoned water up a foothill and back down.

Expect you realize you can't 'siphon' over more than a 32ft bump, so there is something else in play there.

Re: I didn't say it would be easy, or would be done in twenty or fifty years. I believe it needs to be an ongoing goal in those areas where it is feasible.

I applaud your long range thinking. I think more of that needs to be done. But it needs to be done publically with input from many people and viewpoints.

Just some example questions:

• What do we expect the world to look like in twenty or fifty or even more years?
• Should we be planning for continued population growth, or should we plan for a reduction in population growth as well as population?
• If we plan for lower population growth or actual reduction in population, should we consider traditional means or non-traditional means. (Among traditional means, we can consider: war, famine, disease, birth control (except for Catholics?), ...)
• Should we build an inhabited ring around the earth, say "parallel" to the equator, at an elevation of say 50 miles, rotating in sync with the earth. Among other advantages, it can collect solar energy better than on earth under the atmosphere. Maybe space elevators for transportation to and from the ring. The ring is initiated by putting pods in earth orbit at the equator, and then gradually joining more and more pods to them.
• 
  

And they did not have any health and safety regulations, minimum wages, NEPA, etc..

Also you might want to consider the potential for movement of invasive species such as the zebra mussels and those carp in the mississippi, or pollutants.

Don't use the weed. Thanks for the Arizona River Project info. Wikipedia has a map including siphon pipes, aqueducts etc. very nice job. More was planned for New Mexico, but has not been continued yet. It will eventually, unless Arizona uses all the water first. Time is not the issue. Getting started is.

If Californians can move water all around the state, with much more challenging topography, it can be done in the Midwest. That is why I mentioned aqueducts, not just pipes. Pipes may be for local irrigation. They are a lot more efficient than ditches, which lose much of the water.

It can be done, but at what cost? Lyn succinctly stated the cost of what you propose. I believe what you propose is a good idea. What I can't get my arms around is how can we afford to drink this water once it is transported? Forget irogation...and the production of food...I can't see it.

It would have to be done in bits and pieces where it is most needed, most feasible and affordable. I am thinking that some public lands could be sold to raise money for needed projects; much as we did for the transcontinental railroads. Private corporations and farmers associations should be invited to participate. Water would be sold, that would eventually pay for the projects.

A master plan of most needed projects, that are most feasible would be a first step. That would be followed by garnering the political support needed etc. Surely there are some needed and considered projects that would be good starting points.

Barry Goldwater fostered the Arizona project. Sure it takes time, but that is to be expected. We have a lot of people unemployed and agriculture is one of our strongest industries.

More reservoirs would help, and create hydroelectric power potential.

<....It would have to be done in bits and pieces where it is most needed, most feasible and affordable....>

Bingo! This is what the rest of the world does!!

Visionaries without arithmetic are basically blind.

Not only there are many normal engineers who forget that between qualitative and quantitative solution there is some differences. To convince about this you only have to follow the CR4 discussions. Or may be I am wrong they dreamers.

The only minor problem is that much of the land suffering from drought is higher in elevation than where the floods are. Have you thought about the power requirements to pump the Mississippi river to West Texas.

Uh, rivers start up the hill and go down. There might be places where that could be used.

I also suspect that water is going to become a LOT more expensive, and possibly rationed, so the rich don't get all of it.

Interesting point. So I had a look.<higher res]

Seems you only need to follow around the lighter green part, then get it up the olive part. Maybe even up to the raw sienna part. Don't seem much if you read it in meters.

As ormondotvos at least hints in the next post (#15), it would probably make more sense to start building canals nearer the head waters of the various rivers involved.

More gravity head to help move the water, more canals / pipes but less water to move per canal / pipe, and perhaps the smaller quantities of water can be targetted to nearer locations with smaller water requirements, thus perhaps lessening the overall distance. Maybe not, but with more gravity head to work with, lower pumping requirements.

Lake Francis South Dakota is at 1650 feet. South Dakota has some of the most severe flooding I know of. I am researching elevations to the south southeast all the way to West Texas. As far as elevations go it looks doable Not talking the money. Parts of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas could all benefit from a lot of irrigation.

Now that you are mentioning specific areas, sort of - I noticed when I posted the map, the number of rivers flowing from high ground, into the Mississippi.

Seems to me one way of mitigating floods is limiting the inflow.

Now a few people above have observed height of origin and relative purity.

It seems fairly obvious to me how to do it in engineering terms - (now that the parameters are finally emerging)

Will "the Nation" cooperate? All things being equal - that depends on the clarity of your scheme.

Since the inflow is excessive amounts of rain, how do you limit the rain?

It seems fairly obvious to me how to do it in engineering terms - (now that the parameters are finally emerging)

Form a new Great Lake?

I'll donate Nebraska.

That is pretty similar to the conclusion I have come to after gathering blog opinions and more research. Since the headwaters all flow west to east, reservoirs (many) need to trap the water while it is still at higher elevations. Then gravity flow will easily take the water in most cases. Some pumping and siphoning might be worthwhile too though. It can be done, but needs to be cost effective, of course. I am referring to irrigation.

I am a big fan of reservoirs, but they have many enemies. I put agriculture and lake recreation first. Almost all of our large lakes, aside from the Great Lakes, are really reservoirs. I am a kayaker and fisherman, and some stretches of wild rivers need to be preserved, but that is a minor consideration compared to the general welfare of the nation.

I think all of this will take place in due time, but like to plan ahead, before people move into flood plains and future reservoir land. The US Army Engineers are still managing the flow of the Missouri River to prevent a nuclear catastrophe at Fort Calhoun in Nebraska. They are within 45 cm. of being forced to shut down. We need to do all we can to prevent such situations from occurring in the future. There are many other nuclear plants in similar proximity to rivers.

I'm not a petroleum engineer etc, but one must not forget that it is much easier to pump natural gas through hundred of miles of pipelines than water. That is because it is easier to compress NG than water, and that there's a hell of a lot of less friction losses involved passing that same compressed gas under high pressure than water.

You're going to need huge transmission pipes and many many pumping stations along the main(s), especially in the mid-west plains, which are essentially flat as a billiards table.

Might as well drop-in a series of small nuke plants to provide the juice required to power up those pumping stations......the infrastructure needed would be monstrous and take many decades to design, permit, litigate, and if you're extremely lucky construct it all.

And where is all this $$$$ coming from to build this "pipe dream"? Hell, we can't afford any more taxes. We're already taxed enough, and don't forget we have over 14 Trillion Dollars in National Debt and the bottom is ready to drop out with the USA's International credit rating, etc......the US Dollar is becoming nearly toxic according to the Chinese, saying we're to far into debt and can't pay our bills.

Have you checked Moody's lately? The USA's credit rating is about to fall from AAA to AA or worse. Or checking to what Bob Livingston has been saying recently (and for the past decade)? We can't even afford to fix the infrastructure we already have in place! High time to open one's eyeballs and use some common sense.

Why don't you people living in barren arid and waterless southwest pull up stakes and move back to the "Rust Belt" where there's plenty of water to be had, and not costing almost as much as gold?

Sorry for rambling on folks.....it's very late, and has been a long day....have just gotten home from long drive back from the DIRT stockcar races,where I had to "fix" that "racing itch".......

If I buy into the project today do I get a free set of Ginsu knives?

The price of the water obtained in that manner does exclude the use for irrigation unless highly subsidised.

Also consider that one needs about 1 cubic meter of water per year for each square meter of land under irrigation.

Re: Also consider that one needs about 1 cubic meter of water per year for each square meter of land under irrigation.

I guess that's true in general, but by adopting dryland farming techniques and using the water at strategic times (as appropriate to the dryland technique you're using / crop you're growing), you can do quite well with 1/4 to 1/2 that amount. (Note that winter wheat is a crop suitable to dryland farming, as are sunflowers and even watermelon.)

Yes quite true but in arid parts one may exceed the maximum number of water stress days the plant can accommodate and reduce the return or completely loose the crop.

We have done it and the price of the water excludes a lot of farming activities.

If your water bill is more than the income it is better not to do it.

We are pumping water to an arid part for stock farming and some of the farmers want out.

I'll give you a GA for that posting. I couldn't have said it better.

Well said. I'll go with the Capt. and give you a pat on the back(ga).

Welcome to CR4. We need more like you to offset the loonies.

As is so often the case, most people have too many answers before they understand the question.

For example where and at what elevation is the need?

What obstacles are in between the potential supply and potential demand?

What is thew power suppl to overcome gravity?

After these are answered you may begin to talk about solutions.

As to the potability of the water, duh? Very little if any of our water supply is naturally potable so why is rearranging non potable water a problem?

also, there is the question of how much effort it would take to make the water potable, or useable for other applications, like agriculture, that must be considered. Plus the impact to existing environments where the water may be discharged and/or stored. Some water pollutants are harder and more costly to deal with than others.

Good point. Death Valley is below sea level. One of the richest agricultural areas in California is near the Salton sea.

Actually, Imperial Valley is only a agricultural area now, it is not considered good ag land, but ratjher cheap ag land. At least it is cheaper than the good areas along the coast where Cities are growing.

Google the Coachella valley and Imperial county agriculture. You will see that this is extremely productive land. just as is most of the Central Valley of California. Sand seems to be very conducive to agriculture. This area was all under the ocean millions of years ago.

Actually, it is not so conducive to agriculture, silty soils are the best for almost all agriculture. Though I am not sure how that relates. Much of the Imperial Valley and Central Valley where the high value production occurs is covered in clayey soils.

The reason for the increasing productivity in the imperial valley is the cost of land and water, same in the Central Valley. There is a reason why many of the large agricultural companies in areas like Mendota and Coachella are headquarterd in places like Salinas. they started out where the land was really good for growing, but either housing and industrial development has driven the prices up too high, water regulations impact them too much, or other higher profit crops have taken hold. In Salinas Valley for instance strawberries and artichokes cover almost everything now. Why, it is the most profitable crop because of the severe limitation of where you can grow them at a high level of quality. The orchards are migrating out of the Santa Clara Valley and ove the hill because (much like Dairies from Pomona that moved to the Southern San Joaquin Valley) you can sell a few 100 acres for millions move over the hill and buy a few 10000 acres, and the water is strongly regulated in those valleys by the county government water authorities, unlike Coachella or the Central Valley. Water in the Central Valley for Ag is subsidized a little bit by the Feds to keep them from overusing the local resources, which Cities and others depend on.

I will make a brief reply to each of your comments:

1. We do indeed have plenty of water, period. Who said anything about a closed system. A reservoir is not a closed system. Flood waters could help overcome the loss of water in aquifers.

2. Maybe you do not know what alleviate means. It means lessen. I did not say solve the problem!

3. Yes we have a looming water crisis on our hands. That is the point. Anything we can do to replenish aquifers and irrigate farmland is important. If it were up to me, people in arid lands would have to pay high prices to have lawns. High enough to pay for more water projects. On the other hand it is ridiculous for people in wet areas to have to use low flow showers and one gallon toilets.

4. You contradict yourself. You say that the government is not fit to manage surplus public lands but you don't trust private corporations to manage it either. Just let it set there with no use, while we go broke. Is that your solution?

5. Florida doesn't even pump enough water around to put out their forest fires. They just let them burn out by themselves. They will have to solve their own problems first. They are not situated in a spot to pump water to neighboring states.

6. You are worried about increasing the salinity level in the oceans of the world? That is way more ridiculous than any impracticality I have been accused of. Don't you know that all water ends up back on earth. The rivers flow to the sea. The rains fall.

How about starting out with big thoughts, and working in small ways that we can. Every journey begins with a single step. We have many small plans that can be started. Visualize all the people sitting out their not doing anything. India and China each have more than twice the irrigated land that we do. Some day we will have a billion people in the USA. We will be dead, but maybe we can lay the groundwork for those who follow us. Thank God Barry Goldwater envisioned the Central Arizona Project. Let's get started, instead of being naysayers.

Envisioned might be a bit strong for just copying what the State next to your did nearly half a century before. CAP is really just a way of capturing water an using it before they risk any loss of right to said water. A plan based on you know what we should try, those guy next door did and it seems to have worked for the last 50 years for them. Proactive is different than reactionary.

Mere semantics, but he got it started, and I say it is a good thing. I am sure we would find many areas of agreement in ways water could be conserved in Arizona however.

First and foremost would be population planning. Large dense metropolitan areas waste a lot of water, and LA or Las Vegas are not good examples for Phoenix (which is even hotter and drier) to follow. Of course the downside is that population correlates to political influence, so...

Some years back, I participated in the development of a 25 year general plan for the city of Mesa, Arizona.

Our plan was well thought out, and developed over a period of many months with support from the city fathers and movers and shakers of the time.

Virtually every concept of the plan that would have contributed to better land use, logical development of existing resources and water conservation have been gutted by developers out of a quick buck. This has been aided and abetted by every city council elected since then. Money talks, you know the rest.

Urban lakes abound, ski lakes have been built and golf courses are ubiquitous and emerald green and plush. Airport encroachment is a constant problem, too.

Phoenix is following directly in the path of LA and LV, and I see not change of course in the future.

I am sorry that your good work went to waste! I once considered being an urban planner, and have a BA in public administration. I probably would not have survived the frustration. Sometimes the good guys win though. It would be enlightening to see your plan, and have you tell the story of what happened. Too often the politicians can be bought off in one way or another.

I once left a thermometer in my car in Mesa and the bulb popped. Not much worse than Bakersfield, California though.

As long as it isn't Needles

I totally agree, but my projection is that we will be growing at an increasing rate as we become a more Hispanic nation. Most Hispanics like large families and are Catholic. I am part Hispanic, and don't mean this as a negative comment. Muslims are another growing group, who like large families.

Most water in southwestern suburbia is used for lawns, which is fairly unproductive water use.

First, I did say you were thinking outside the box and gave you kudos for doing so. Yes, we need to think big and outside the box. You posed the question and people are responding to that question with valid science and engineering based reasons why it is not practicable. I have the sense you are unhappy with my response. We should all keep in mind that arrive at the best solution means putting our ideas on the table and not be attached to them.

1. I did say we had a lot of water, but we are running out of potable water. When water is in pipes and between pumps it is in a closed system. You did not mention a reservoir in your OP. But anytime water remains stationary for a period of time is begins to grow "stuff". Health-wise you never want to use flood waters to recharge an aquifer as it will render that aquifer unusable for human consumption.

2. OK, so make the flooding not so deep. 6" of water in my house causes as much damage as 4'.

3. You missed my point. You can't siphon more than 32'. That means lots of pumping stations, lots of power required. You replenish an aquifer by letting it recharge itself and not use more then it can support. It is not just drinking water, but also commercial and industrial uses and fire control.

4. Reread my post. I never said the gov is not fit to manage any lands. Just because there is not an "activity" per se on public lands does not mean it is not being used. Many public lands serve as watersheds for drinking sources must be protected, and timber lands would be waste lands if they weren't in national parks. As an aside, many of the catastrophic forest fires are a result of our misunderstanding of how nature keeps the balance: letting smaller fires take care of the undergrowth. These large fires (as we see now) rage out of control destroying everything in their path and the amount of water used is stressing our water resources.

5. I mentioned FL because you mentioned it in your OP, stating that they need water badly and then talking about trading water.

6. The power consumption to desalinate is very significant, that is my main point. Again, reread my post. I was talking about raising the salinity levels locally, not the oceans of the world. Ask a marine biologist about the affects of dumping salt in any body of water including the ocean. It is not ridiculous.

It is great to have ideas and think big; I have them too. And yes, every long journey begins with one step. Some of what you mention could be done in small localized areas, but is not feasible for larger section of the country, let alone for the whole country. We might have a B people, but by that time we will have run out of fossil fuels. You also need to factor in that virtually all of our current infrastructure (water, power, communications, roads, bridges, etc.) will have to be replaced. This does include any natural disasters (volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.), or wars. The current power grid could never support the pumps required in your plan. In fact, before we build much more power generation we need to upgrade and update the current transmission system. Even if the technology is there, the financial resources would not come. I would like to hear how you overcome the mechanical, structural, financial and public issues before you call other people naysayers.

I totally agree with your new post. Sorry to step on your toes. I was just trying to defend my points. Please see my post prior to this one. I now believe that several states to the east of the Mississippi and Along the Missouri should eventually increase construction of reservoirs, and include irrigation plans, as needed in arid areas. I believe this could be done on a statewide basis with cooperation among states in the planning.

I do believe that we should sell off some of our public lands to private developers. Of course I am not talking about "national treasures". I am a conservative member of the Sierra Club. Not many exist. I feel that we are now giving a little too many parcels of land protected status. I believe in multiple use, which is the credo of the National Forests. I don't care if there is a well managed mine, oil well, or natural gas development carefully placed in cooperation with the Forest Service.