Great Lakes tunnel?

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
You can beech about a problem and blame. How about coming up with solutions. Why the hell are these plants not up and down the pacific coast?
Without knowing too much I'd say it has to do with need and motivation. Israel cannot rely on anywhere else for water. They had their backs to the wall sooner. Keep in mind no one wants to pay for anything these days so politicos have always depended on "trusty Rusty" even if Rusty is no longer so trusty. To said's post I'd say we will see these all up and down the W. Coast soon.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Heck no to a tunnel. Leave Midwestern water in the Midwest. God intended people to be smart enough to live where the water is. Southwesterners would only use more water to expand and would be facing new shortages in short order.

Just like Kinison said…
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Heck no to a tunnel. Leave Midwestern water in the Midwest. God intended people to be smart enough to live where the water is. Southwesterners would only use more water to expand and would be facing new shortages in short order.

God put minerals and other resources there. Why do you think people stopped there in the first place? Run out of gas? Well, ok, SOME of them ran out of gas but most of those people having working reasons to be there and that work often depends upon the actual geography.

Now NO ONE has a good reason to retire there. Get rid of the golf courses and you cut the population in half AND fix the water problem.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
Fresh water isn't an infinite resource. Sending a bunch of it to the desert is completely moronic

People need to stop moving to places where there isn't enough water
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
These are not easy numbers for people to grasp. Most cannot imagine how millions of people can be sustained in a "desert," let alone why they need to be here or what would happen to our economy if they weren't. Water usage is another number hard for people to grasph. What they see in their daily lives seems like a lot to them but in reality is it drops. Chicago uses 1 billion gal per day. Sounds like a lot. Lake Michigan alone could provide that for about 6 million days, presuming no recycling or reuse of anytype. Water kind of is an infiinite resource. Mining it is what causes the problem.
 

Termite2

Well-known member
It would make sense to divert water from the annual floods in the midwest to the arid areas of the west. You only ship when it floods. If that is not financially feasible or it is more expensive than desalination, then no.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
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.
Israel has no choice, we do.

The population in the American Southwest is to high. They are there for the weather which is fine but they don't get to take water from thousands of miles away to have lush lawns, golf courses, swimming pools and long showers.

All we need are enough people to maintain a mining industry to fully exploit the mineral wealth of this arid region. The extra millions of people living there are not impacting the national economy in a positive way. You could stick Las Vegas anywhere with nice weather and it's going to thrive.

Sure people have the right to live in a desert. But they don't have a right to create ecological havoc by redirecting water from half a continent away to support their lifestyle in the desert. If you want to live in the American Southwest you have to radically change your life style.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
It would make sense to divert water from the annual floods in the midwest to the arid areas of the west. You only ship when it floods. If that is not financially feasible or it is more expensive than desalination, then no.
It makes even more sense to collect that water in large retention areas for use later in the year when we experience low rainfall. I am amazed at how many ponds cover our Midwestern farming region. There must be thousands of these water collection systems providing water to farmers & homeowners.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Israel has no choice, we do.



Did you switch sides of the aisle over the weekend or fall off the right edge?

We don't have the choice to force massive numbers of people to move as you proposed. It's not a "we" choice. It's an individual choice.

Water getting diverted is not new. Massive amounts get pumped over a pass as high as I mentioned would have to happen in Montana. This is not new tech. Whether GL water gets diverted to the SW or not is an economic trade-off. The majority of people are not there because of golf courses. They are there because of industry that moves the country. If that industry is geographically specific and cannot be maintained because of lack of water or people, someone will fix that.

Diverting straight from the GL would meet all the legal opposition already mentioned. But no one is closing the outlets at the Chicago River (yet) or the St. Lawrence. Siphoning that same water from the Mississippi would have little opposition. That water is already headed to where it would be doing no economic good AND it's closer. Mehico might complain if we connected a pipe from the lower Mississippi and reversed the Rio Grande, or they might not. They would benefit also.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Did you switch sides of the aisle over the weekend or fall off the right edge?

We don't have the choice to force massive numbers of people to move as you proposed. It's not a "we" choice. It's an individual choice.

Water getting diverted is not new. Massive amounts get pumped over a pass as high as I mentioned would have to happen in Montana. This is not new tech. Whether GL water gets diverted to the SW or not is an economic trade-off. The majority of people are not there because of golf courses. They are there because of industry that moves the country. If that industry is geographically specific and cannot be maintained because of lack of water or people, someone will fix that.

Diverting straight from the GL would meet all the legal opposition already mentioned. But no one is closing the outlets at the Chicago River (yet) or the St. Lawrence. Siphoning that same water from the Mississippi would have little opposition. That water is already headed to where it would be doing no economic good AND it's closer. Mehico might complain if we connected a pipe from the lower Mississippi and reversed the Rio Grande, or they might not. They would benefit also.
No one is forcing any of these people to do anything. If they want to live where there isn't any water go for it. But they also need to know that the country isn't going to fix their lack of water problem. Consider this like how we're dealing with people who live in flood prone zones. They can stay but we're not paying to rebuild their homes and replace their belongings after the next flood.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
No one is forcing any of these people to do anything. If they want to live where there isn't any water go for it. But they also need to know that the country isn't going to fix their lack of water problem. Consider this like how we're dealing with people who live in flood prone zones. They can stay but we're not paying to rebuild their homes and replace their belongings after the next flood.
Well actually unfortunately, we will and are but back to topic.

Don't be so sure who won't pay for what. They said same thing about the highway system. You can't move geography. There's industry there that can't be replaced. If it's decided a population is needed to maintain it, then that population will be maintained. And they're also our best border protection. You're being short-sided as always lotr. Just like your complaints about non-fossil energy investments.

Investment rules this country whether someone following podcasting pundits find it to their current leanings or not. Much like oil, if a reasonable plan can be designed to build a water highway, it will be built.
 

Gulliotine

Well-known member
Lake Michigan alone could provide that for about 6 million days, presuming no recycling or reuse of any type. Water kind of is an infinite resource.

You do realize the world is bigger than Chicago?

Fresh water is already a precious commodity, our stewardship of it is pathetic, and demand is skyrocketing.

My god we're willing to pay 2 bucks for a 20oz bottle of it now!
 

bigkat

Well-known member
It makes even more sense to collect that water in large retention areas for use later in the year when we experience low rainfall. I am amazed at how many ponds cover our Midwestern farming region. There must be thousands of these water collection systems providing water to farmers & homeowners.
I'm thinking about putting one of those cement ponds in my back yard.......
 

I enjoy wrestling

Well-known member
It makes even more sense to collect that water in large retention areas for use later in the year when we experience low rainfall. I am amazed at how many ponds cover our Midwestern farming region. There must be thousands of these water collection systems providing water to farmers & homeowners.
Evaporation, along with long periods with no rain make retention areas tough. Underground storage is best for those areas. Look up how much a single almond tree needs for water. Government controls the water and the blame game starts. 2 or 3 years ago all of California reservoirs were at full capacity.
 

cabezadecaballo

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.
I guess there really shouldn’t be farmlands or cattle ranches in the northern part of Arizona anymore.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Evaporation, along with long periods with no rain make retention areas tough. Underground storage is best for those areas. Look up how much a single almond tree needs for water. Government controls the water and the blame game starts. 2 or 3 years ago all of California reservoirs were at full capacity.
Agree for water storage in warm, arid & high sunlight regions like Southern California. But in the Midwest, ponds are a great way to store water. The evaporation rate is a lot less. My pond typically sees only a 2 foot drop from the spring to early fall. The golf course near my land has several retention ponds that they use to water over the summer and fall.
 

cabezadecaballo

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.
We should return the Chicago River to it original state. Keep those jumping carp away
 

lotr10

Well-known member
I'm thinking about putting one of those cement ponds in my back yard.......
I have land in Clermont county with a pond. When you look at the county with Google Earth the thing that impresses is just how many ponds there are. Farmers are using the water for all sorts of stuff. It's an incredible resource.
 
.
Top