Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Filling Lake Mead with Mississippi River Water No Longer a Pipe Dream


Recommended Posts

  • Gold Member
12 minutes ago, Highmark said:

That's fine as long as Arizona pays for that infrastructure and cost to get those resources there just like I do in my electric bill to pay for the coal at the local power plant or local waste treatment facility.  I think where people have an issue is much of what you read people there act like they are owed it by the rest of the country.  People in Alaska and Hawaii have to pay more for certain resources....if you live in the desert you should too.   

As for the first comment yeah humans have been living in the desert for eon's but not with needing to water golf courses and every living quarters having a pool.   AZ averages a pool for every 13 people.  

I think water bills are pretty expensive in the desert towns.  Golf courses pay a lot I think for water as do those that fill pools and such.

Most certainly waterbills for those that use it would pay for pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Build the pipeline. Who really cares? 

The people living on/near the river when it’s water level plummets? Shipping and commerce that use the River? Mark Twain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

I think water bills are pretty expensive in the desert towns.  Golf courses pay a lot I think for water as do those that fill pools and such.

Most certainly waterbills for those that use it would pay for pipeline.

Then charge the fuck out of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

I think water bills are pretty expensive in the desert towns.  Golf courses pay a lot I think for water as do those that fill pools and such.

Most certainly waterbills for those that use it would pay for pipeline.

Absolutely they do and it should be more if a pipeline half way across the country is needed for them to survive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Build the pipeline. Who really cares? 

More than likely it will never happen at least not from the Great Lakes. There's people way smarter than you and I who do care and I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons why that will never happen.

 

GREAT LAKES DIVERSION APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS

Several landowners and public water supply systems transferred water from the Great Lakes basin to the Mississippi River basin prior to 2008 (the year the Great Lakes Compact and Agreement were ratified). The DNR issued approvals to these entities and recognize them as “pre-existing” diversions.”

However, the Great Lakes Compact and Agreement ban diversions of Great Lakes water with limited exceptions. These exceptions allow a "straddling community" or "community in a straddling county" to submit an application to the DNR to divert water (i.e., to move water out of the Great Lakes Basin).

  • Straddling community - These communities straddle the Great Lakes Basin boundary. These are communities that lie partly within the Great Lakes Basin and partly outside of the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Community in a straddling county - These communities are wholly outside of the Great Lakes Basin, but located in a county that straddles the Great Lakes Basin boundary. The City of Waukesha’s diversion approval is an example of a ‘community in a straddling county’ diversion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
3 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

And why’s that? Cause they live in dry climates 

Ya.  They pay for water.  Is that surprising to some?  If they had a pipeline from the Mississippi River what makes people think they wouldn’t pay for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Ya.  They pay for water.  Is that surprising to some?  If they had a pipeline from the Mississippi River what makes people think they wouldn’t pay for that?

I don't doubt they would pay for the water and possibly even the pipeline.   Problem I have is a state able to force eminent domain on other states landowners or will the fed govt get involved to condemn the land or easement. 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Ya.  They pay for water.  Is that surprising to some?  If they had a pipeline from the Mississippi River what makes people think they wouldn’t pay for that?

Then just pay for desalination plant and they can produce their own water. Use solar panels and windmills to power it

Edited by Skidooski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
Just now, Highmark said:

I don't doubt they would pay for the water and possibly even the pipeline.   Problem I have is a state able to force eminent domain other states landowners or will the fed govt get involved. 

They could piggy back on fossil fuel pipeline right of way that likely already had that exact type of involvement for its existence….  Plenty of existing pipeline right of way to get from the Mississippi delta to the Colorado river.

 

61A28E58-50D3-4BA4-9D92-30E2800A4AC5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
3 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Then just pay for desalination plant and get produce their own water and use solar panel and windmills to power it

Not as cost effective as just shipping in ample fresh water via pipeline from where it dumps into the ocean.

 

hard to believe how many appear to be against using our existing natural resources.  Which fresh water is one of the great US natural resources.

Edited by BOHICA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
9 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Not as cost effective as just shipping in ample fresh water via pipeline from where it dumps into the ocean.

 

hard to believe how many appear to be against using our existing natural resources.  Which fresh water is one of the great US natural resources.

Sunshine is plentiful in the southwest. You could sell all that excess energy and make money. Bottle up your water and sell that too. You already said you don’t want to share your water but you expect other states to share theirs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
4 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Sunshine is plentiful in the southwest. You could sell all that excess energy and make money. Bottle up your water and sell that too. You already said you don’t want to share your water but you expect other states to share theirs 

So you are against sending fresh water where it meets the oceans to areas that could use it?  I’m not.  

Never said I was against sending water.   They can grab it at the mouths of the rivers where they enter the ocean.  By that time it’s done supporting farmers, hydro operations and endangered species.

Edited by BOHICA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

So you are against sending fresh water where it meets the oceans to areas that could use it?  I’m not.  

Never said I was against sending water.   They can grab it at the mouths of the rivers where they enter the ocean.  By that time it’s done supporting farmers, hydro operations and endangered species.

Ahh the “so you” argument tactics comes out. :lol:

Start sending water from the Mississippi to the desert and it’ll get sucked dry just like everything else has. Build a plant and make your own water 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
3 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Ahh the “so you” argument tactics comes out. :lol:

Start sending water from the Mississippi to the desert and it’ll get sucked dry just like everything else has. Build a plant and make your own water 

Financially it makes more sense and less energy intensive vs desalination.

 

15% of the nations crop output comes from the desert.  13 percent of livestock production.  You guys would cry as much about prices at the grocery store have you guys have cried about over the last few years.

 

hard to believe how staunch some of you all are on exploiting natural resources.  Very liberal aurguement you are making FYI

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

Financially it makes more sense and less energy intensive vs desalination.

 

15% of the nations crop output comes from the desert.  13 percent of livestock production.  You guys would cry as much about prices at the grocery store have you guys have cried about over the last few years.

 

hard to believe how staunch some of you all are on exploiting natural resources.  Very liberal aurguement you are making FYI

:lol:Who’s trying to exploit natural resources again? You’re a mouth piece for it but not willing to back it up. No shortage of water around here and I’d like to keep it that way. You move to a dry climate and complain about lack of water is like the idiot that moves next to a pig farm and then complains about the smell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with using water out of Mississippi would be how much allowed so that salt water does not flow back up river?

right now Mississippi has been so low they are fighting this problem right now.

So here’s way to kill two birds with one stone.

build nuke plant that desalinates water for cooling.

pump water from ocean.

you get electricity and water!!

oh yeah nukes bad!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
1 minute ago, Skidooski said:

:lol:Who’s trying to exploit natural resources again? You’re a mouth piece for it but not willing to back it up. No shortage of water around here and I’d like to keep it that way. You move to a dry climate and complain about lack of water is like the idiot that moves next to a pig farm and then complains about the smell

You live at the mouth of the Mississippi River!

you sound like a democrat in you opposing of using natural resources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

You live at the mouth of the Mississippi River!

you sound like a democrat in you opposing of using natural resources

So I’m a democrat making a liberal argument against something or another :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
2 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

So I’m a democrat making a liberal argument against something or another :lol:

Typically not exploiting natural resources is reserved for 1 of the 2 parties….  You would likely align with some far left organizations that that would glue/chain themselves to the equipment building a water pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
25 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

So you are against sending fresh water where it meets the oceans to areas that could use it?  I’m not.  

Never said I was against sending water.   They can grab it at the mouths of the rivers where they enter the ocean.  By that time it’s done supporting farmers, hydro operations and endangered species.

But by then is filled with the somewhat maybe / maybe not treated wastewater from several cities along the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...