Great Lakes tunnel?

arizonawildcat

Well-known member
Would it be feasible to dig a tunnel from the Great Lakes, probably Michigan and Superior, to the American southwest to relieve the water shortage there?
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
As opposed to a pipeline, a canal, or WHY IN GOD's NAME would we want to do that! ? IDK
NASA

I think relieving any water shortage there, real or imagined is about the last thing we would want to do with water from east of the divide. If you were do to it, I think they'd pretty much hug the northern border, which only goes up a 100 feet or so until you hit Montana. The up to about a 1000 or there is where your tunnel would happen, to the western border into the Kootenai at 2000, pumping the whole way, then let nature take it to the Columbia then let the western states fight over it.

The other option would be to siphon off of Mississippi or Mo through Texas low lands.
 
Last edited:

NothingButTheTruth

Well-known member
I've lived in Arizona twice in my life. Once in Apache Junction as a kid and then in Tucson as an adult. One major issue for water usage is all the northern folks (Minnesota and Wisconsin for example) moving to the Sonoran Desert and insisting on have grass lawns, which must be hydrated on an almost daily basis. Add on all the pools and water evaporation, and you can see where a lot of water goes needlessly.
 

chs1971

Well-known member
As opposed to a pipeline, a canal, or WHY IN GOD's NAME would we want to do that! ? IDK
NASA

I think relieving any water shortage there, real or imagined is about the last thing we would want to do with water from east of the divide. If you were do to it, I think they'd pretty much hug the northern border, which only goes up a 100 feet or so until you hit Montana. The up to about a 1000 or there is where your tunnel would happen, to the western border into the Kootenai at 2000, pumping the whole way, then let nature take it to the Columbia then let the western states fight over it.

The other option would be to siphon off of Mississippi or Mo through Texas low lands.
The Montana border is about 1,400 feet higher in elevation than Lake Superior.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
As opposed to a pipeline, a canal, or WHY IN GOD's NAME would we want to do that! ? IDK
NASA

I think relieving any water shortage there, real or imagined is about the last thing we would want to do with water from east of the divide. If you were do to it, I think they'd pretty much hug the northern border, which only goes up a 100 feet or so until you hit Montana. The up to about a 1000 or there is where your tunnel would happen, to the western border into the Kootenai at 2000, pumping the whole way, then let nature take it to the Columbia then let the western states fight over it.

The other option would be to siphon off of Mississippi or Mo through Texas low lands.
Or not give them any water, and tell them that millions and millions of people living in a desert doesn't make sense, water-wise.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
I've lived in Arizona twice in my life. Once in Apache Junction as a kid and then in Tucson as an adult. One major issue for water usage is all the northern folks (Minnesota and Wisconsin for example) moving to the Sonoran Desert and insisting on have grass lawns, which must be hydrated on an almost daily basis. Add on all the pools and water evaporation, and you can see where a lot of water goes needlessly.
Too many people, too little water.
 

arizonawildcat

Well-known member
The water in needed most in the farmlands and cattle ranches in the northern part of Arizona. I agree that a pipeline would be the better solution. I also realized that the pipeline would have to start in Lake Michigan, as all the other lakes have a border with Canada.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
The Montana border is about 1,400 feet higher in elevation than L
Yep, I was refering to the rise though N. Dakota. I meant "another"
"until you hit Montana. The up to about a 1000"

Pumps all the way until a tunnel on the western edge of Montana, where elevation jumps quickly. The Marias Pass is the lowest through the divide, at least in the States. That would be the tunnel under, it's still at 5000. From there to the Kootenai I don't know about Alberta.

I'm not proposing it. Just playing with the idea. Mississippi would still seem the better path to get Great Lakes water to the west, via the reversed Chicago River.
 

ohiopup

Well-known member
NO: no new diversion permitted.
Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement
(between the U.S. & Canada) which binds the States and Provinces to sustain
the watershed. Water drawn from the area can NOT be diverted to any outlet other
than the watershed itself. ie; Ohio can not supply water to Columbus or any
site South of the Ohio divide (all drains to the Mississippi basin).

:>---

SALT
 
Last edited:

ohiopup

Well-known member
Yep, I was refering to the rise though N. Dakota. I meant "another"
"until you hit Montana. The up to about a 1000"

Pumps all the way until a tunnel on the western edge of Montana, where elevation jumps quickly. The Marias Pass is the lowest through the divide, at least in the States. That would be the tunnel under, it's still at 5000. From there to the Kootenai I don't know about Alberta.

I'm not proposing it. Just playing with the idea. Mississippi would still seem the better path to get Great Lakes water to the west, via the reversed Chicago River.

the Chicago River...
there is serious studies to shut that off.

wiki...
All outflows from the Great Lakes Basin are regulated by the joint U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Commission, and the outflow through the Chicago River is set under a U.S. Supreme Court decision (1967, modified 1980 and 1997). The city of Chicago is allowed to remove 3,200 cubic feet per second (91 m3/s) of water from the Great Lakes system; about half of this, 1 billion US gallons per day (44 m3/s), is sent down the Chicago River, while the rest is used for drinking water. In late 2005, the Chicago-based Alliance for the Great Lakes proposed re-separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins to address such ecological concerns as the spread of invasive species.

:>---

SALT
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
the Chicago River...
there is serious studies to shut that off.

wiki...
All outflows from the Great Lakes Basin are regulated by the joint U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Commission, and the outflow through the Chicago River is set under a U.S. Supreme Court decision (1967, modified 1980 and 1997). The city of Chicago is allowed to remove 3,200 cubic feet per second (91 m3/s) of water from the Great Lakes system; about half of this, 1 billion US gallons per day (44 m3/s), is sent down the Chicago River, while the rest is used for drinking water. In late 2005, the Chicago-based Alliance for the Great Lakes proposed re-separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins to address such ecological concerns as the spread of invasive species.

:>---

SALT

Invasive species prevention is the convenient canard used to give excuses to do other things. Wonder how this one will turn-out? Meanwhile some want to deepen the Mississippi in order to get more international shipping (invasive species) up river to St. Louis and beyond. And replacing the divide would never account for the purposeful introduction of invasive species, that seems the real issue.

And there will be those opposed to the benefits of having clean Lake Mich water coming to their communities.
 

19AL63

Well-known member
Truth is they would just waste it and it would not be long before you would be hearing how the lake is down X many feet and in danger of going dry.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
NO: no new diversion permitted.
Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement
(between the U.S. & Canada) which binds the States and Provinces to sustain
the watershed. Water drawn from the area can NOT be diverted to any outlet other
than the watershed itself. ie; Ohio can not supply water to Columbus or any
site South of the Ohio divide (all drains to the Mississippi basin).

:>---

SALT
I grew up in Western NY which borders Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and the answer to this question is a resounding NO. First a formidable coalition of Great Lake Governors (Minn, Wisky, Ill, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, PA & NY) would fight it tooth and nail. Second, Canada would fight this idea even harder.

The Great Lakes region is an economic and agricultural powerhouse. It would be insane to divert water from this region and send it to the American southwest. how about we DEPOPULATE Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Southern Utah? Maintain enough people to keep the mining industry afloat. It was always insane to encourage millions of people to live in a desert.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Truth is they would just waste it and it would not be long before you would be hearing how the lake is down X many feet and in danger of going dry.
See the story of the Aral Sea in the old Soviet Union to understand the environmental catastrophe that would result from diverting the Great Lakes water to the Southwest.
 

OhioBobcatFan06

Well-known member
Great Lakes States and Canadian provinces signed an alliance prohibiting this from happening.

If California attempts to steal my water I am prepared to take up arms with my Great Lakes brethren
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
I grew up in Western NY which borders Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and the answer to this question is a resounding NO. First a formidable coalition of Great Lake Governors (Minn, Wisky, Ill, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, PA & NY) would fight it tooth and nail. Second, Canada would fight this idea even harder.

The Great Lakes region is an economic and agricultural powerhouse. It would be insane to divert water from this region and send it to the American southwest. how about we DEPOPULATE Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Southern Utah? Maintain enough people to keep the mining industry afloat. It was always insane to encourage millions of people to live in a desert.
ohiopup already said exactly how and why. There is not question.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
I've said it for years. In the future the precious commodity wars will be fought over isn't oil. It will be fresh water.

The ants will have a field day ruling the world.
I always told my kids, as everyone moved out of the Midwest to the SW and FL that some day they will all return over water. Winter's may suck but it sure is nice having an abundant supply of water.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Invasive species prevention is the convenient canard used to give excuses to do other things. Wonder how this one will turn-out? Meanwhile some want to deepen the Mississippi in order to get more international shipping (invasive species) up river to St. Louis and beyond. And replacing the divide would never account for the purposeful introduction of invasive species, that seems the real issue.

And there will be those opposed to the benefits of having clean Lake Mich water coming to their communities.
It will not be long before the world ecosystem looks like W. Asia. No more Ash trees, no more Elm trees. Zebra Mussels and Quaga Mussels. Carp of all kinds. Turns out the Great Lakes ecosystem is/was fairly weak compared to elsewhere. Less time to evolve due to ice receding?
 

said_aouita

Well-known member
Desaline ocean water should be seriously studied. With ocean levels raising it would help work on two problems at the same time.
^tada

https://www.waterworld.com/internat...ter-desalination-gains-momentum-in-california

fig1.png
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I grew up in Western NY which borders Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and the answer to this question is a resounding NO. First a formidable coalition of Great Lake Governors (Minn, Wisky, Ill, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, PA & NY) would fight it tooth and nail. Second, Canada would fight this idea even harder.

The Great Lakes region is an economic and agricultural powerhouse. It would be insane to divert water from this region and send it to the American southwest. how about we DEPOPULATE Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Southern Utah? Maintain enough people to keep the mining industry afloat. It was always insane to encourage millions of people to live in a desert.
How many do you think needed to mine the mines? Yours is not the issue. And WE don't depopulate anything. I understand, that's the country you want, United Stateistan. Others have better solutions.

How Israel...

It's not just about desalination or migrating people out.. Leaving large tracts of mineral laced land open on our southern border is beyond foolish. They can self-sustain. They do not have a right or a need for Great Lakes water, that is the easy solution they are looking for instead of the one that requires their effort.
 
Last edited:

Zunardo

Well-known member
Would it be feasible to dig a tunnel from the Great Lakes, probably Michigan and Superior, to the American southwest to relieve the water shortage there?

What about building a gravity elevator from Northern Arizona? It would come out the other side somewhere on the floor of the Indian Ocean, and you could just pump it through, desalinate, and you'd be good to go.
 
.
Top