6 ms·

How an engineer looks at the idea of pumping water from Mississippi to the West

nathanaldensr 4y ago
It ain't happening, folks. Better start the mass migration now before it's too late (assuming insane water use policies continue as they have).
- unstatusthequo 4y ago
  Well, they wanted to build an oil pipeline across the country. That nearly happened. Guess we understand what’s more valuable to the lobbyists.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    Oil is over 100x more valuable per unit than water, isn’t it? My residential water source charges $8/1000 gallons, or about $.30/bbl. Oil is around $100.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    A freshwater pipeline spill is pretty harmless. Oil, not so much.
- acdha 4y ago
  That’s not it either: most of the water use is agricultural. Even if you move, you’re affected by that - even to some extent internationally. What we should be doing is taxing water heavily with some kind of progressive scale, and a phase-in saying the tax will go up 10% a year to encourage people to invest in efficiency improvements.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely and expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already. We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. There are fruit crops which are important to grow in California, but most of the crops that consume major amounts of water don't need to be grown here at all. It's just not that big of a deal to relocate the vast majority of water consuming crops.
    - innagadadavida 4y ago
      If you have travelled on I5 and have seen all the farm owners with their placards, you will soon realize their water rights are iron clad - they are a vote bank and their economic output is significant. So, in conclusion, CA will: 1. Let the ground water deplete and ground sink 2. Bring in migrant workers from outside / illegally to work the lands 3. Take away water from your showers and toilets But they will never move these industries out of Central Valley. Now I need to find a public ledger to record my predictions.
      - sparker72678 4y ago
        You’re not wrong (Drive the 99, it’s ever starker), but most of these people aren’t living just to spite others. Without positive incentives to get these people to take their livelihoods elsewhere (or find new livelihoods), why are they going to be enthusiastic about being encouraged out? We need carrots, not just sticks.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        They don't have many votes. Furthermore, their share of the California economy is astonishingly tiny. So it should be very fixable. Most of the US vegetable crop is grown in California, but there is practically no value in growing other things there. Most of the alfalfa is exported to feed to foreign animals. In effect we are donating water to those countries.
    - 4y ago
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Just banning alfalfa cultivation in California would free up all the water anybody needs. Ban pistachios for even more.
tomohawk 4y ago
How an economist might look at it: tax the hell out of living in the desert. Los Angeles, Los Vegas, and other locales are in a desert. Living there is not sustainable. Look at how California has already been terraformed to supply water to Los Angeles. Enough already.
- gpapilion 4y ago
  California was terraformed to support logging and mining operations. Now it supports agriculture with a much smaller percentage supporting cities.
- booi 4y ago
  As long as property values increase faster than the desert tax, this might not work
- thehappypm 4y ago
  This isn’t realllly right. Urban water usage isn’t really crazy. Take a shower or flush a toilet and the water has just moved and become something to clean. Agriculture is the problem. Arizona shows us that cities can be very water lean.
  - onionisafruit 4y ago
    Urban areas require nearby agriculture to sustain it. Agricultural water usage is urban water usage because urban life requires that agriculture to happen.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - thehappypm 4y ago
      Not really.. most of what states like California grow is exported far and wide.
    - volkl48 4y ago
      Not at all. Most of CA's agriculture is distributed nationally (or internationally), not growing staple foods for local consumption.
bell-cot 4y ago
At least it's talking about the Mississippi. Vs. such stories often feature the Great Lakes - so a longer & more expensive pipe, reaching to a source with less water available. And it sounds like the guy's a sane engineer, so he quickly concludes "it's a pipe dream" without needing to get into a bunch of weedy details.
- kabirgoel 4y ago
  A pipe dream, or a dream pipe? :)
pasttense01 4y ago
When you open the article and it opens to a subscription page the solution is to just open it in private browser mode.
_8j50 4y ago
I am far from an engineer so I have questions. First, is the 3700ft terminus the only way for water to flow? Are tunnels not an option? $150B one time cost is acceptable, the interstate highway cost trillions. My recurring idea to build next and in parallel or under major interstate highways a water way,sewage route and a high speed railway. The availabiliy of water wherever there is a an interstate highway and railway would solve so many problems including housing and it will be an economic boom. Much more land would be habitable and towns would explode. The economic activity generated will offset the costs in a few decades and this can be all powered by a combination of nuclear (water source), hydro (transmission/route/boosting) and wind+solar (anywhere?). Actually, my idea was to use nuclear power by the pacific coast, desalinate it, deposit the brine in the desert and send the water to reservoir lakes from which my proposed interstate transportation and utility route will be fed. This will then unsher a new era of the megapolis! Of course I will need become your leader then, naturally! (Jk). Can someone more sane tell me how crazy this idea is and why it would cost more than the IHS? You can bond out most of the financing because the profit from rail travel, excess power and water would pay of long term bond interests, you wouldn't need to print new money or anything.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > Are tunnels not an option? The 3,700 ft terminus refers to the surface elevation of Lake Powell ("Lake Power" in the article) when full. A tunnel 2,000 ft below ground doesn't do any good if you need surface water. Plants don't grow well in tunnels.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Would the tunnel into lake powell 2000ft below not fill it up still? Is it not possible to fill a half full bucket with a hose at the bottom of the bucket? With storm drainage tunnels , they still fill up the bigger tunnels and reservoirs even though the tunnel terminates under water. What physics thingy am I missing?
    - pzone 4y ago
      Imagine a hose in the bottom of a bucket, but the opening to the hose is lowered below the bucket. The flow would go in the wrong direction. So without the elevation step, this project would drain the lake.
drewbug01 4y ago
This is one of my favorite internet dramas right now. Some highlights: - “When floods, tornadoes hit the Midwest, the West helps pay. So why can't we have some water?”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/17/when-floods-hit-midwest-west-helps-pay-so-give-us-some-water/10063184002/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/17/w... - “If California comes for Midwest water, we have plenty of dynamite in Minnesota”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/11/if-california-comes-midwest-water-minnesota-has-plenty-dynamite/7827575001/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/11/i... - “If Midwest doesn't want to share water, fine. But don't ask us for help with your problems”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/22/if-midwest-wont-share-water-dont-ask-west-help-your-woes/10091680002/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/22/i... There are so many letters, and it’s kinda fun to watch. That said, I feel a profound sadness that so many people cannot envision any solution to unsustainable water practices other than “just give us your water.” Agricultural practices in the west simply cannot continue; and truly arid desert regions (for example, Las Vegas) simply must adapt. We cannot divert more water to solve the problems - the crisis today shows exactly why that’s not the right answer.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There is plenty of water vapor in the air in Nevada. We just need to extract it.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Looked it up. It costs something like 140x to extract water from humidity than by To desalination. That would pay for a fair bit of pumping.
electric_dreams 4y ago
[flagged]
ncmncm 4y ago
It seems like using solar and wind power to extract moisture from the air would be overwhelmingly cheaper than pumping it from far away. The atmosphere brings you the water for free, you just need to extract it. It amounts to running a big dehumidifier. You would of course only need to run the system when the panels and turbines are producing, so opex is close to zero.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It turns out running a dehumidifier requires way more energy than desalinating and pumping water.

It ain't happening, folks. Better start the mass migration now before it's too late (assuming insane water use policies continue as they have).

unstatusthequo 4y ago
Well, they wanted to build an oil pipeline across the country. That nearly happened. Guess we understand what’s more valuable to the lobbyists.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Oil is over 100x more valuable per unit than water, isn’t it? My residential water source charges $8/1000 gallons, or about $.30/bbl. Oil is around $100.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  A freshwater pipeline spill is pretty harmless. Oil, not so much.
acdha 4y ago
That’s not it either: most of the water use is agricultural. Even if you move, you’re affected by that - even to some extent internationally. What we should be doing is taxing water heavily with some kind of progressive scale, and a phase-in saying the tax will go up 10% a year to encourage people to invest in efficiency improvements.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely and expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already. We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. There are fruit crops which are important to grow in California, but most of the crops that consume major amounts of water don't need to be grown here at all. It's just not that big of a deal to relocate the vast majority of water consuming crops.
  - innagadadavida 4y ago
    If you have travelled on I5 and have seen all the farm owners with their placards, you will soon realize their water rights are iron clad - they are a vote bank and their economic output is significant. So, in conclusion, CA will: 1. Let the ground water deplete and ground sink 2. Bring in migrant workers from outside / illegally to work the lands 3. Take away water from your showers and toilets But they will never move these industries out of Central Valley. Now I need to find a public ledger to record my predictions.
    - sparker72678 4y ago
      You’re not wrong (Drive the 99, it’s ever starker), but most of these people aren’t living just to spite others. Without positive incentives to get these people to take their livelihoods elsewhere (or find new livelihoods), why are they going to be enthusiastic about being encouraged out? We need carrots, not just sticks.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      They don't have many votes. Furthermore, their share of the California economy is astonishingly tiny. So it should be very fixable. Most of the US vegetable crop is grown in California, but there is practically no value in growing other things there. Most of the alfalfa is exported to feed to foreign animals. In effect we are donating water to those countries.
  - 4y ago
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Just banning alfalfa cultivation in California would free up all the water anybody needs. Ban pistachios for even more.

tomohawk 4y ago

How an economist might look at it: tax the hell out of living in the desert. Los Angeles, Los Vegas, and other locales are in a desert. Living there is not sustainable. Look at how California has already been terraformed to supply water to Los Angeles. Enough already.

gpapilion 4y ago
California was terraformed to support logging and mining operations. Now it supports agriculture with a much smaller percentage supporting cities.
booi 4y ago
As long as property values increase faster than the desert tax, this might not work
thehappypm 4y ago
This isn’t realllly right. Urban water usage isn’t really crazy. Take a shower or flush a toilet and the water has just moved and become something to clean. Agriculture is the problem. Arizona shows us that cities can be very water lean.
- onionisafruit 4y ago
  Urban areas require nearby agriculture to sustain it. Agricultural water usage is urban water usage because urban life requires that agriculture to happen.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    Not really.. most of what states like California grow is exported far and wide.
  - volkl48 4y ago
    Not at all. Most of CA's agriculture is distributed nationally (or internationally), not growing staple foods for local consumption.

bell-cot 4y ago

At least it's talking about the Mississippi. Vs. such stories often feature the Great Lakes - so a longer & more expensive pipe, reaching to a source with less water available. And it sounds like the guy's a sane engineer, so he quickly concludes "it's a pipe dream" without needing to get into a bunch of weedy details.

kabirgoel 4y ago
A pipe dream, or a dream pipe? :)

pasttense01 4y ago

When you open the article and it opens to a subscription page the solution is to just open it in private browser mode.

_8j50 4y ago

I am far from an engineer so I have questions. First, is the 3700ft terminus the only way for water to flow? Are tunnels not an option? $150B one time cost is acceptable, the interstate highway cost trillions. My recurring idea to build next and in parallel or under major interstate highways a water way,sewage route and a high speed railway. The availabiliy of water wherever there is a an interstate highway and railway would solve so many problems including housing and it will be an economic boom. Much more land would be habitable and towns would explode. The economic activity generated will offset the costs in a few decades and this can be all powered by a combination of nuclear (water source), hydro (transmission/route/boosting) and wind+solar (anywhere?). Actually, my idea was to use nuclear power by the pacific coast, desalinate it, deposit the brine in the desert and send the water to reservoir lakes from which my proposed interstate transportation and utility route will be fed. This will then unsher a new era of the megapolis! Of course I will need become your leader then, naturally! (Jk). Can someone more sane tell me how crazy this idea is and why it would cost more than the IHS? You can bond out most of the financing because the profit from rail travel, excess power and water would pay of long term bond interests, you wouldn't need to print new money or anything.

eesmith 4y ago
> Are tunnels not an option? The 3,700 ft terminus refers to the surface elevation of Lake Powell ("Lake Power" in the article) when full. A tunnel 2,000 ft below ground doesn't do any good if you need surface water. Plants don't grow well in tunnels.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Would the tunnel into lake powell 2000ft below not fill it up still? Is it not possible to fill a half full bucket with a hose at the bottom of the bucket? With storm drainage tunnels , they still fill up the bigger tunnels and reservoirs even though the tunnel terminates under water. What physics thingy am I missing?
  - pzone 4y ago
    Imagine a hose in the bottom of a bucket, but the opening to the hose is lowered below the bucket. The flow would go in the wrong direction. So without the elevation step, this project would drain the lake.

drewbug01 4y ago

This is one of my favorite internet dramas right now. Some highlights: - “When floods, tornadoes hit the Midwest, the West helps pay. So why can't we have some water?”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/17/when-floods-hit-midwest-west-helps-pay-so-give-us-some-water/10063184002/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/17/w... - “If California comes for Midwest water, we have plenty of dynamite in Minnesota”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/11/if-california-comes-midwest-water-minnesota-has-plenty-dynamite/7827575001/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/11/i... - “If Midwest doesn't want to share water, fine. But don't ask us for help with your problems”: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/22/if-midwest-wont-share-water-dont-ask-west-help-your-woes/10091680002/ https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2022/07/22/i... There are so many letters, and it’s kinda fun to watch. That said, I feel a profound sadness that so many people cannot envision any solution to unsustainable water practices other than “just give us your water.” Agricultural practices in the west simply cannot continue; and truly arid desert regions (for example, Las Vegas) simply must adapt. We cannot divert more water to solve the problems - the crisis today shows exactly why that’s not the right answer.

ncmncm 4y ago
There is plenty of water vapor in the air in Nevada. We just need to extract it.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Looked it up. It costs something like 140x to extract water from humidity than by To desalination. That would pay for a fair bit of pumping.

electric_dreams 4y ago

[flagged]

ncmncm 4y ago

It seems like using solar and wind power to extract moisture from the air would be overwhelmingly cheaper than pumping it from far away. The atmosphere brings you the water for free, you just need to extract it. It amounts to running a big dehumidifier. You would of course only need to run the system when the panels and turbines are producing, so opex is close to zero.

ncmncm 4y ago
It turns out running a dehumidifier requires way more energy than desalinating and pumping water.