was just in the news lately that the cities along the lake are having serious squabbles with cities inland from the lakes wanting to draw water from the lakes. it was looking ugly there and then it all dropped out of the news.

"pseudo typically when the corps of engineers wants to talk about water diversion into the sw they have the bright idea that they will divert the mackenzie river from dumping into the arctic ocean into the rocky mountain trench then south to the sw us." Yes that is another possibility, as is the Mississippi. I believe the Mississippi was going to be used further east than New Mexico and Colorado in conjunction with other projects centered in the SW including the Mackenzie I would imagine. It's not just Arizona that is in trouble. This is a problem facing quite a few states, one the federal Government will be unable to ignore. I mean the whole Ogallala Aquifer is drying up here man, that feeds alot of water into our agriculture. To let it just dry up with no change would have serious repercussions on our agricultural production. Even now farmers are trying to back away from irrigated agriculture to attempt to stem the tide, but that's not gonna be enough and water they need is eventually not gonna be there. No way no how can the Government ignore this. While Water Diversion does present problems the simple fact is that it will be so much cheaper than other solutions that it will be one of the major contenders that will be discussed. "technically possible but it's a painfully foolish idea because when the russians diverted two rivers for the same kind of project they managed to change the salinity of the arctic ocean which changed the world's weather a little bit. the mac is more than 10x the flow of the two russian rivers combined so the effects would be much more pronounced." Everything we do affects the worlds weather, as long as its not a catastrophic change they will simply have environmental impact projects to work to ease whatever troubles may arise. Water diversion is by far the cheapest and easiest solution to a problem that is going to be a Media Event, that might not be enough due to politics to divert the water, but it is going to be a very serious contender. The problem is not going away, and something will be done, and the Federal Government is going to lead the way. This will be big in Congress come 2020ish, and the Media is going to have a field day.

"was just in the news lately that the cities along the lake are having serious squabbles with cities inland from the lakes wanting to draw water from the lakes. it was looking ugly there and then it all dropped out of the news." I saw the same things, but unlike Nan I have heard talk of Supreme Court threats, nothing about calling out the national guard. And the reason the Mississippi is being considered is that they would shunt it at the outlet which takes away alot of the nasty fights from people downstream.

How about damage to La's economy by draining fresh water from the most economically important waterway in the US? one thing that seems to be over looked in this is that the mississippi is already experiencing low water problems during the summers. there may not be enough water to justify the rather ungodly price tag attached to the project especially if the world continues to get warmer. you should also probably consider that the last 150 years or so have been abnormally moist and mild across much of the west. this shortage of water could easily become much more widespread than just the sw.

i would suggest that if water is diverted from the miss it's not going to be at the mouth of the river it's going to be much further up. the whole idea is to not have to pump the water rather let it run downhill as much as possible. if you start off at sea level essentially it's all uphill and that's an awful lot of water to pump 24/7. i've not looked at contour maps but i think the diversion is going to be a very long way upstream.

Everything we do affects the worlds weather, as long as its not a catastrophic change they will simply have environmental impact projects to work to ease whatever troubles may arise. diverting those two russian rivers actually changed the albedo of the world a fairly tiny but measureable amount. the mackenzie river would change things more significantly especially reinforced by current warming trends. mind you it's a moot point because there is no way a canadian gov't is going to go for the scheme in the first place.

"A couple thousand years ago they invented these things called pumps, after thousands of years of development they might be ready." 1. You were the one who said that the Gulf flowed into the mississippi. 2. Who in their right mind would want to pump salt water upstream into a fresh water environment. Can it be done? With enough money and time anything can be done. But you are completely off the wall from a logic standpoint, not to mention where will Baton Rouge and a shrunking NO get their water from? "Actually as the river level drops they can input less sea water, making the downstream a tad lower. Anyways your whole point was that doing this would make NO get swamped. It won't. NO gets swamped because NO is a Swamp." WTF? Input less sea water into the river? You are way off base. NO may be a swamp, but getting hit by large waves is what did the damage during katrina and big waves don't come from the Miss. R. "Which is why getting it as close as possible to the outlet is important, it lessens the impact." To do that, you'd be pumping water from the marshes, which are salty, and there is mixing in the delta region. "So how exactly is the water being taken out of hte mississippi now? Do they have to dredge those pipes? Man these are some strawmans arguements." Small inlets for local water facilities take in less volume and therefore less silt. They also don't have to transport it very far. What kind of idiot are you? What a stupid idea, even OW doesn't concoct this kind of crap. You don't know , what a moron. "Why don't we wait until this is on National Television being called "Drough Watch 2025", then we can take your poll. Most of the idiots in this country will say EXACTLY WHAT THE MEDIA WANTS THEM TO." Is that some kind of scare tactic being drummed up by the SW states? Most people are going to say "what kind of an idiot moves to the desert to live?" "A few people? We are talking MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, THEY CANNOT IGNORE IT." The population of NM and AZ together might break 3 million, but that's only two states. LA has alot more people and the rocky mountain states have already told them to take a hike when it comes to getting water. Yes, those people can be ignored and should be ignored. "The water needed downstream of the shunt is provided BY THE SHUNT... If you want me to draw you a map to make it easier to understand..." Oh, I'd love to see that drawing, so you are going to take fresh water away and replace it with the same system you use to drain the river? Where does the extra water come from? You haven't answered any questions, only thrown up some wild guestimations about how some half baked pump can take away enough water from the mississippi to save the SW and yet La. will not notice the water is gone because your magical little system will replace the water it is taking from some yet to be determined source. "It's all about timing man. Just because you liberals, this is a reply to calling me a neocon btw, can ignore every problem saying it doesn't matter to you, the fact is you are not a majority in the United States." I"m not the one proposing big boondoggle projects with federal money to benefit a small minority of idiots. You qualify as neither liberal or neocon and they'll both say "heck no" to taking their water. Colorado is a fairly conservative state and is conserving all of the water for itself, after giving up what is required by water rights law to Nebraska and Kansas. If you knew anything about the water rights wars between colorado, nebraska and kansas you might get a clue as to people's attitudes towards giving away water to someone else. The SW is screwed. "Strawman's arguement covered for the FOURTH TIME. Dude I answered this on the last thread, like a few other of your questions. You need to pay more attention." Answered it with your little magical shunt? Yeah, let's see that drawing...and no crayon. "Drought Watch 2025, Drought Watch 2025, Drought Watch 2025, Drought Watch 2025, Drought Watch 2025, Drought Watch 2025 " Watch those idiots in the SW dry up and blow away.

"And the reason the Mississippi is being considered is that they would shunt it at the outlet which takes away alot of the nasty fights from people downstream." By the time you get downstream of NO you are in mixing territory. The gulf and the mississippi waters mix in the marsh areas due to tidal forces. Also, La is keen on getting the natural defenses rebuilt to withstand the next cat 5 or cat 6 hurricane. Gee, how will the people and gov't of LA vote? Save the SW or save ourselves?

"i would suggest that if water is diverted from the miss it's not going to be at the mouth of the river it's going to be much further up." The farm lobby, agribusiness lobby, a few large cities and several states will have a problem with that.

The US often lets obsolete industries die to make way for new ones. The SW is a hydrological burden on the rest of the country, so the rest of the country may need to let them suffer. No more golf, no more spas, no more car washes, no more big green lawns under the 120 degree sun. The SW ought to think about making nice with the mexican states of Tiajuana, and the Bajas to buy their desalinated water. Move to the desert and demand water from others, sounds almost like the anti-welfare argument that conservatives make.