[Buzz123]

Water everywhere, but especially in the west, has always been about money and political power. The lake is not going to dry up anytime soon. There are a lot of solutions to the problem and scaring residents into not using so much so they can charge more for less is one of them.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by tijlover

True, true, lvoc, it's a political problem, not a water problem!

Instead of building that expensive water pipeline up North (the Governor of Utah is opposed to it, and he could bring lawsuits against the project) it's a better idea, as Pat Mulroy suggests, that we pay the farmers of the Imperial Valley to allow some of their fields to lay fallow, occasionally.

But what really needs to be done is forcing the farmers in that region to better conserve water through more water-saving drip irrigation. And since it's futile to fight California, it will take the U.S. Governmental intervention to bring that about!

The issue is now and has always been with California and western water law. Note that the Colorado Compact overrode western water law. And it can happen again. But it will be tough. The one thing on earth that CA will not willingly part with is water.

The interesting thing is the question will likely have to be called. It appears there simply is not enough water to meet the agreements of the compact. I would think it unlikely that the feds will actually allow the dam to go dry...

[Yuptag]

Originally Posted by MollieW

If we can have an oil pipeline, why can't we have a water pipeland in the upper 48 states? Instead of cities flooding, the water could to states suffering a drought. Is this impossible?

Water pipeline would need to be much bigger than an oil pipeline to transport a meaningful amount of water.

I can't think of a single state that consistently has excess water or water that is not in some way allocated. There may have been flooding along the Red River of the North in the last 5 years, but that is only seasonal. Same in Iowa. If it was economically feasible to save the water, both states would likely have to done it for ag purposes.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Yuptag

Water pipeline would need to be much bigger than an oil pipeline to transport a meaningful amount of water.

I can't think of a single state that consistently has excess water or water that is not in some way allocated. There may have been flooding along the Red River of the North in the last 5 years, but that is only seasonal. Same in Iowa. If it was economically feasible to save the water, both states would likely have to done it for ag purposes.

Actually I think you can easily find the water but the storage and shipment costs kill you.

Even CA has excess water available but it is difficult and expensive to get it where it is needed.

NV is in somewhat worse shape as there is no large uncommitted water source in the state. It can however tap a number of sources in the north for enough water to help. Las Vegas also has local water available that they only partially harvest. Not huge but tens of thousands of acre feet.

[UTES]

Wow - great posts by the crew. I'm learning something from this one.

Bill

[MrWillys]

The rivers in the North that flow from California into Nevada just evaporate. The Walker, Carson, and Truckee rivers. Good luck getting approval to lower lake levels to pipe this water to Vegas.

How many of you actually understand why Hoover dam was built? It was a 1905 flood of the Imperial Valley that filled the Salton Sea. It was dry prior to this. Hoover dam was about flood control with a benefit of power generation.

It is amazing the people who think it's Nevadans against California. It's more than likely profits from the Water companies driving up the prices.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

The rivers in the North that flow from California into Nevada just evaporate. The Walker, Carson, and Truckee rivers. Good luck getting approval to lower lake levels to pipe this water to Vegas.

How many of you actually understand why Hoover dam was built? It was a 1905 flood of the Imperial Valley that filled the Salton Sea. It was dry prior to this. Hoover dam was about flood control with a benefit of power generation.

It is amazing the people who think it's Nevadans against California. It's more than likely profits from the Water companies driving up the prices.

The water dispute between CA and the rest has little to do with the dam except the dam is a major part of its regulation. By western water law CA has the rights to virtually all of the water from the Colorado. The compact changed that. And the dispute is exactly between the people of Nevada and other states and the agricultural interests in California.

And Hoover dam does not come down as it still regulates the flow of the Colorado and likely will for some centuries yet.

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by lvoc

By western water law CA has the rights to virtually all of the water from the Colorado. The compact changed that.

Colorado River Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just don't think the Nevada saw a greater need in 1922, and some action should be taken to modify the 1922 compact.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

How many of you actually understand why Hoover dam was built? It was a 1905 flood of the Imperial Valley that filled the Salton Sea. It was dry prior to this. Hoover dam was about flood control with a benefit of power generation.

The Hoover Dam would have been built sooner, had it not been for some wealthy L.A. businessman, named Chandler, who owned 800,000 + agricultural acres in northern Baja Mexico, and he was benefiting from the unimpeded flow of the Colorado River. He was influential enough to delay its construction, at the time. Which helps explain why northern Baja Mexico was allotted 1.5 million SA of water to this day.
And with that water, it has to be used wisely for both agriculture and keeping Mexicali and Tijuana alive.

And, yes, the flood that created the Salton Sea was also a factor.

By Las Vegas being the biggest water saver in the SW, I really don't know what we're trying to accomplish by it, other than delaying the inevitable, which is, having the Feds intervene and give Southern California a well-deserved spanking! Force them to use some Israeli-style irrigation in that Imperial Valley or else!!! Or, just boycott any produce coming from the Imperial Valley!

To accelerate that inevitability, keep that lawn nice and green!

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by tijlover

The Hoover Dam would have been built sooner, had it not been for some wealthy L.A. businessman, named Chandler, who owned 800,000 + agricultural acres in northern Baja Mexico, and he was benefiting from the unimpeded flow of the Colorado River. He was influential enough to delay its construction, at the time. Which helps explain why northern Baja Mexico was allotted 1.5 million SA of water to this day.

Can you document this claim? To the best of my intense research on this subject matter I've never heard such a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
The agreement with Mexico was not until 1944, which was well after completion.