5 ms·
The Missouri discharges an average of 2,445 cubic meters of water per second (2004). This is 77.1 cubic kilometers per year, but it varies significantly per yea
by anonymouskimmer 2y ago
The Missouri discharges an average of 2,445 cubic meters of water per second (2004). This is 77.1 cubic kilometers per year, but it varies significantly per year, and per time of year. In (2000) 26 cubic kilometers of water was removed from the Ogallala aquifer. So for an average year we're looking at 1/3 of the total flow over the entire basin. And on those years when water is needed the most this is likely to be an even larger share of the river (such as 2006 when 26 cubic kilometers was just over 2/3 of the total Missouri discharge).
2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge
2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
It might work, though would be expensive, but what are the literal downstream effects?
- cyberax 2y agoSure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and to construct reservoirs to manage the seasonality. However, calling the proposed aqueduct "regressive" is not a good reasoning.
- anonymouskimmer 2y agoIt seems kind of regressive for a common tax to pay for the aquifer that primarily benefits the farmers. If its paid for by taxing the farmers directly, or at least proportionately, then sure, it probably wouldn't be regressive.
- cyberax 2y agoI don't think the author meant "regressive" in that sense. For them it means: "Actually thinking about a solution instead of wringing hands"