"Yes it will raise the river level up to sea level, the rest will be done with pumps." the river flows into the sea because it has a higher elevation than the ocean. 1. You need to take a refresher course in geography. 2. Pumping sea water above the mixing area to increase sea level distorts the water chemistry, killing off wildlife. In the case of La. that would remove more of the natural barrier that protects NO. Ever taken a chemistry class? "Like I said for the FIFTH TIME, they will get water from the shunt. God I really feel I need to draw you a map." You cannot get around the loss of fresh water volume that will occur, and replacing it with sea water will do more harm than good as no one can use the salt water for domestic or industrial use. Yeah, draw a map, impress everyone, but no crayon. "Actually as the river level RISES they can input less sea water" Again, you fail to understand the fatality stupid idea of pumping sea water into a fresh water system. The river level will not rise when you take water out, it will drop. "all of which can be solved by engineering. " Your kind of engineering involves taking enough water out of a river to supply the desert, but somehow assuming that 1. river level will not be affected 2. You can replace fresh water with sea water and no one will care. What you call "strawman" is called taking all possibilities into account. That is an important skill for engineers. Otherwise bridges fall down, buildings collapse, etc. "I am talking about something ANYONE WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERING KNOWS IS POSSIBLE. Condsecend to me? You are the idiot coming up with the same arguement over and over AFTER I ANSWER IT SIX TIMES. WHO IS THE IDIOT?" Since you can't answer questions about the damage salt water in a fresh water environment will do, you would be the idiot Mr. Engineer. "Do you even know what the Ogallala Aquifer is you simpleton?" The Ogallala aquifer is under the midwestern states and they have water rights to it. It is also approaching depletion, such as you are approaching ludicracy. Now you are talking about pumping water from the Ogallala to the Mississippi to replace the water sent to the SW? 1. it would be cheaper and eaiser to pump Ogallala water to the SW. 2. Water rights held by the midwestern states aren't going to allow that. They need that water for agriculture and since they are the breadbasket of much of the world, they are more important than the SW. "THEY DON'T USE ALL THE FRESH WATER IN THE MISSISSIPPI. Man you sure are stupid for someone acting so smart." But I do understand that the Miss R. has a limited volume that is needed for river traffic if nothing else, and taking water from it won't work. "the ones proposing this are people facing the fact that our "Breadbasket" is about to become a dustbowl." AZ and NM do not participate in the Breadbasket. "Okay this points out the fact you don't know what the Ogallala Aquifer is," It has nothing to do with water rights disputes with Colorado. "ten year old nephew who understands." After a couple years in high school he'll disagree with you. "THAT IS NOT MY IDEA BUT A PROPOSAL THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." ALot of things are proposed by the gov't and alot are rejected. This idea will see the circular file.

"No more Great Plains Agriculture. Now them's some fighting words..." What part of AZ or NM is in the great plains.

I thought you were done with me two posts ago, and do include your drawing.

"the sw draws a good hunk of its water from the aquifer while the great plains further north don't rely on that rather they are basically at the mercy of what falls from the sky for moisture." A more realistic reaction to a shortage of water in the breadbasket will be to cut off the SW from all midwestern aquifers.

You're not gone yet?

well the oglalla is a single aquifer and that's the only one they can draw from as it extends into the sw. it's absolutely impossible to stop people at the south end drawing from it other than by legal action. fresh water is going to be a huge problem in this century especially as the world warms up and dries out. canada is blessed to have a rather hefty chunk of the worlds fresh water but whether sharing is going to be acceptable or practical remains to be seen.

"it's absolutely impossible to stop people at the south end drawing from it other than by legal action. " Physically impossible to stop, yes, but when the west was being settled, water rights law was born and is now a major factor in development. Kansas and Nebraska would certainly have precedent to legally stop the SW from drawing water.