Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Desalination is not the answer. While it will be touted as the answer and likely will be the method used to satisfy demand, the byproducts are deadly.
But, but,...I keep reading about these new brine disposal methods.
When we could simply add a massive Great Lakes pipeline to the infrastructure plan.
What's Canada going to do if we siphon off some water on their side of the border, nothing.
I love your posts, especially on environmental issues of any kind. Could you please explain to me two things, in the desalination scenario:
1. It will increase demand for petrol. Desal uses huge amounts of petrol, I've heard. I don't think the world is ready for an intensification of petrol exploitation, do you? Where are additional sources, sufficient to desal all that ocean water, going to come from? I mean, without more fracking that causes earthquakes under people's homes and communities, and without more Tar Sands projects, and whatever other desperate measures oil companies and governments will take.
2. What happens to all the extra sal? it can destroy soil and crops, if it blows around out of control, and it would change the chemistry of the oceans, if it were dumped back in the ocean massively.
The salt goes back into the ocean, or is used for other purposes. It's not going to change ocean chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
Old saying: Water will Always arise to $$$. Then, it's a matter of how much of a water bill do you want every month.
In the 1970's the Texas Water Plan was put to a vote, and it was narrowly defeated. And it was the West Texas ranchers who wanted it above all, as the Oglalla Aquifier is running dry. The Plan: pipe water from the Mississippi river to west Texas @3500 feet in altitude. Yes, push the water upwards! To accomplish that, as reported, it would have taken 2 nuclear power plants to continually push it upstream. Those in Houston, of course, voted it down as they have too much water.
And, to push it further upstream to, say, Gallup, NM, at 6500 feet, and to dump it into the Colorado River? We're talking some very expensive water.
Perhaps, with Canada, some deal could be reached. Share your water, and we'll give you some of the Aleutian Islands. Or how about a Hawaiian island?
It's pretty much impossible to build a pipeline to carry water, the quantities involved are too high. That's why aqueducts are the usual method to move water from place to place.
Old saying: Water will Always arise to $$$. Then, it's a matter of how much of a water bill do you want every month.
In the 1970's the Texas Water Plan was put to a vote, and it was narrowly defeated. And it was the West Texas ranchers who wanted it above all, as the Oglalla Aquifier is running dry. The Plan: pipe water from the Mississippi river to west Texas @3500 feet in altitude. Yes, push the water upwards! To accomplish that, as reported, it would have taken 2 nuclear power plants to continually push it upstream. Those in Houston, of course, voted it down as they have too much water.
And, to push it further upstream to, say, Gallup, NM, at 6500 feet, and to dump it into the Colorado River? We're talking some very expensive water.
Perhaps, with Canada, some deal could be reached. Share your water, and we'll give you some of the Aleutian Islands. Or how about a Hawaiian island?
Canada has a better idea. How about giving us Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington and Oregon (Cascadia) and they will have no problems.
..... What's Canada going to do if we siphon off some water on their side of the border, nothing.
I suspect thievery of such a precious vital resource would be interpreted as a declaration and act of war. After all, water wars is what this thread is about, right?
I'm guessing that since Canada and America would still be each other's closest and biggest trade partners that they're both already dependent on for a number of vital resources they would therefore both prefer to arrange for newer trade treaties rather than engaging in hostilities with each other. The water treaty between Canada and America has already been in place for many decades.
I'm also guessing that if America stooped low enough to break treaties and cross the border to steal from it's closest trade partner, as you are suggesting should be done, that whatever Canada would do about it would depend on which of Canada's resources and industries are the most important commodities that America's economy is already dependent on that Canada can shut off. It wouldn't be water because only nature can turn the water on and shut it off. But everything else can be turned on or shut off. My guess is the natural gas and oil taps would be the first things to get shut off. America wouldn't need them anymore.
I think it's probably better for everyone if Canada and America were to work together and pay for what they need from each other instead of turning on each other and engaging in a war of attrition.
Don't think the idea of a raid on Great Lakes water is that far-fetched. Plans were in the works to allow a Canadian company to sell Lake Superior water to Asia via tanker ships as recently as 1998. A coal company in 1981 wanted to pipe Superior water to Wyoming to move its semi-liquefied product back to the Midwest. And in 1982, Congress mandated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study the feasibility of using Great Lakes water to replenish supplies needed for the heavily agricultural Plains states. (It wasn't feasible.)
Quote:
The lakes' main source of legal protection comes from the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement between eight Great Lakes states that was further approved by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. The compact also includes Canada's two provinces on the lakes, Ontario and Quebec, and its terms cannot be changed without the approval of all compact member state and provincial governments.
Quote:
The big elephant in the middle of the room is agriculture," Learner said. "California milk competes with Wisconsin on milk. Fruits and vegetables from California compete with fruits and vegetables from Michigan. The bottom line is, we're not going to be shipping Great Lakes water out to California for agricultural goods that compete with those produced here."
Quote:
But there's more water diverted into the Great Lakes than is diverted out; particularly at the Longlac and Ogoki diversions in Ontario. They take water bound for Hudson Bay and divert it to northern Lake Superior at 5,580 cubic feet per second. The diversions were initially created to bolster hydroelectric power generation to help wartime manufacturing in the U.S. during World War II, but then were maintained by mutual agreement between the U.S. and Canada after the war.
Last week, Wisconsin gave permission to Racine to divert Lake Michigan water outside of the Great Lakes basin. The approval might have been okay if the water was for drinking water, but Racine wants the water to service a Foxconn factory making LCD screens. This is out of line with the Great Lakes Compact, and we need Ontario to step-up and request a regional review. A decision to divert water outside of the Great Lakes basin for industrial use should not be made by one state alone. Especially when that state has already bent other environmental laws to help sweeten the deal for Foxconn.
The future of water diversions largely depends on the severity of climate change and what that will look like across the country, said Dempsey. Desalination plants have increased in the Southwest United States and across the world, but while the prices for converting salt water to fresh water have dropped, the process is expensive and comes with its own set of issues such as brine disposal.
There is also the possibility of mass migration to the Great Lakes. People may come to the basin, a place that experts say will be the least affected by climate change, and use the water here instead of diverting it. But Dempsey says both could happen, too.
“The question for me is not if the compact will change, but how long it’s going to take,†said Dempsey. “It may take 10, 20, or 100 years. But severe drought in the Southwest will increase pressure at the federal level and they’ll have to decide the most economically viable solution.â€
I think it's probably better for everyone if Canada and America were to work together and pay for what they need from each other instead of turning on each other and engaging in a war of attrition.
I agree, that would really mess up NHL hockey.
All jest aside, the US paying for water rights seems a more cost effective solution than mass desalination.
There's a farmer painting my house right now, along with the rest of the crew.
Why?, his feed corn and soybean crops have gone dormant; yet Lake Michigan is less than 100 miles from said crops. People complaining right now about food prices will be complaining a lot more come Fall.
Unless it starts raining more.
I agree, that would really mess up NHL hockey.
All jest aside, the US paying for water rights seems a more cost effective solution than mass desalination.
There's a farmer painting my house right now, along with the rest of the crew.
Why?, his feed corn and soybean crops have gone dormant; yet Lake Michigan is less than 100 miles from said crops. People complaining right now about food prices will be complaining a lot more come Fall.
Unless it starts raining more.
Most corn producers would not exist if it wasn't mandated for fuel. What a sin!
Right you are! I knew there had been a thread about the water situation from a few years ago because I remember posting in it, I just couldn't recall how far back it was discussed and what forum it was in. Thanks for dredging it up and posting the link because it is indeed an informative thread relevant and shining more light onto this thread.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I knew there had been a thread about the water situation from a few years ago because I remember posting in it, I just couldn't recall how far back it was discussed and what forum it was in. Thanks for dredging it up and posting the link because it is indeed an informative thread relevant and shining more light onto this thread. 
