The Utah Pipeline

[Jkca1]

How could anyone be against both massive debt and taking water from other states as the drought continues?

"The $2.24 billion Lake Powell Pipeline is a massive new diversion of Colorado River water that is completely unnecessary for Utah’s future. The Pipeline would siphon between 83,000 and 86,000 acre-feet of water annually from Lake Powell and pump it 2000 feet uphill and across 140 miles of pristine desert to some of America’s nation-leading water users in Washington County in southwest Utah. The Pipeline is being proposed by the Utah Division of Water Resources and will saddle Washington County residents with billions of dollars of debt."

The Lake Powell Pipeline | Unnecessary. Expensive. Destructive.

The Utah Division of Water Resources wants to build an unnecessary and expensive pipeline project that will burden taxpayers and ratepayers with generations of debt and massive water rate increases. This government spending project comes with enormous risks and impacts and is entirely unnecessary fo

lake-powell-pipeline.org

 

[mrjurrs]

How could anyone be against both massive debt and taking water from other states as the drought continues?

"The $2.24 billion Lake Powell Pipeline is a massive new diversion of Colorado River water that is completely unnecessary for Utah’s future. The Pipeline would siphon between 83,000 and 86,000 acre-feet of water annually from Lake Powell and pump it 2000 feet uphill and across 140 miles of pristine desert to some of America’s nation-leading water users in Washington County in southwest Utah. The Pipeline is being proposed by the Utah Division of Water Resources and will saddle Washington County residents with billions of dollars of debt."

The Lake Powell Pipeline | Unnecessary. Expensive. Destructive.

The Utah Division of Water Resources wants to build an unnecessary and expensive pipeline project that will burden taxpayers and ratepayers with generations of debt and massive water rate increases. This government spending project comes with enormous risks and impacts and is entirely unnecessary fo

lake-powell-pipeline.org

I'd say they have a long court battle in front of them before this starts drawing water.

 

[MamboDervish]

How could anyone be against both massive debt and taking water from other states as the drought continues?

"The $2.24 billion Lake Powell Pipeline is a massive new diversion of Colorado River water that is completely unnecessary for Utah’s future. The Pipeline would siphon between 83,000 and 86,000 acre-feet of water annually from Lake Powell and pump it 2000 feet uphill and across 140 miles of pristine desert to some of America’s nation-leading water users in Washington County in southwest Utah. The Pipeline is being proposed by the Utah Division of Water Resources and will saddle Washington County residents with billions of dollars of debt."

The Lake Powell Pipeline | Unnecessary. Expensive. Destructive.

The Utah Division of Water Resources wants to build an unnecessary and expensive pipeline project that will burden taxpayers and ratepayers with generations of debt and massive water rate increases. This government spending project comes with enormous risks and impacts and is entirely unnecessary fo

lake-powell-pipeline.org

This raises the larger issue of whether we should have a national water infrastructure project, and federal policy, rather than states all fighting each other over water rights. Every single year there are areas that come under drought conditions, and other areas that flood due to rainfall and snow melt. Any other developed country on the planet, that didn't have 50 different states to contend with, would have developed a national water policy and the infrastructure to carry water from where there is too much, to where there is too little. But partisan bickering seems more important to our citizens than undertaking infrastructure projects that presuppose we will have a future in this country. It's a form of toxic myopia.

 

[Jkca1]

This raises the larger issue of whether we should have a national water infrastructure project, and federal policy, rather than states all fighting each other over water rights. Every single year there are areas that come under drought conditions, and other areas that flood due to rainfall and snow melt. Any other developed country on the planet, that didn't have 50 different states to contend with, would have developed a national water policy and the infrastructure to carry water from where there is too much, to where there is too little. But partisan bickering seems more important to our citizens than undertaking infrastructure projects that presuppose we will have a future in this country. It's a form of toxic myopia.

We need someone in charge of water, who do you trust? At the same time I want to know now, before the nightmare gets worse, what if anything does the Federal and State Govt. owe people whose homes are going to disappear with rising tides? Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow insurance companies are not going to take a loss if they can prevent it. People with homes near the water are going to see them disappear and those same people will need to relocate. Are we going to just wait until high tide or declare parts of the country disaster areas today, before the actual disaster happens? This is one of those rare occasions where we have years to prepare for a disaster, can we get it right and what does "right" entail?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Its a stupid idea to build up a city in a desert that cannot support it.

 

[Linc]

The far better water pipeline systems for the distant future would be along the interstates and major U.S. roads from excess water east of the Mississippi R. to such water systems such as the Ogallala Aquifer and the Colorado River complex.

One route I’ve traveled and looked at is from U.S. 60 East of the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers over the berms in Missouri and head west to Joplin, MO. Then switch to U.S. 160/166 and head to Trinidad, CO.

From there, it gets real engineering-wise and of course cost-wise. It’s a trillion dollar infrastructure project to move excess water, very often flood water, from the wet east to the arid west to such lakes as Powell.

Another one I really like is from Louisiana through Texas to Albuquerque and on to Lake Powell. Good luck moving water from the Great Lakes due to water politics to let’s say the Ogallala Aquifer which is running out.

It’s hard for me to imagine the oceans as an infinite water supply with the advent of more desalination plants across the world. We have to find a way to capture flood water and heavy rains.

 

[upsideguy]

Its a stupid idea to build up a city in a desert that cannot support it.

...like Las Vegas....

 

[MamboDervish]

We need someone in charge of water, who do you trust?

It's not so much "who do you trust", as it is who is competent to determine the most environmentally safe movement, and who contracts the building of the pipelines.

Federal Agencies Involved in Water Interests - Water Education Foundation

International Boundary and Water Commission - The International Boundary and Water Commission is responsible for the ...

www.watereducation.org

At the same time I want to know now, before the nightmare gets worse, what if anything does the Federal and State Govt. owe people whose homes are going to disappear with rising tides?

The government owes people nothing for their homes. People have been choosing to build near water, at their own peril, since before I was born, very often repeatedly applying for disaster relief when they inevitably flood again. They should sell ASAP, and move out of harms way.

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow insurance companies are not going to take a loss if they can prevent it.

Insurance companies just raise their rates as dictated by their actuarial tables. As risks go up, rates go up.

People with homes near the water are going to see them disappear and those same people will need to relocate.

They should do that.

Are we going to just wait until high tide or declare parts of the country disaster areas today, before the actual disaster happens?

? That's up to the owners. Many people choose to stay in high risk areas for many reasons - many of them stupid.

This is one of those rare occasions where we have years to prepare for a disaster, can we get it right and what does "right" entail?

If you're near a rising ocean, sell and move farther inland. If you're in a flood plain, sell and move to higher ground.

 

[coyote505]

The far better water pipeline systems for the distant future would be along the interstates and major U.S. roads from excess water east of the Mississippi R. to such water systems such as the Ogallala Aquifer and the Colorado River complex.

One route I’ve traveled and looked at is from U.S. 60 East of the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers over the berms in Missouri and head west to Joplin, MO. Then switch to U.S. 160/166 and head to Trinidad, CO.

From there, it gets real engineering-wise and of course cost-wise. It’s a trillion dollar infrastructure project to move excess water, very often flood water, from the wet east to the arid west to such lakes as Powell.

Another one I really like is from Louisiana through Texas to Albuquerque and on to Lake Powell. Good luck moving water from the Great Lakes due to water politics to let’s say the Ogallala Aquifer which is running out.

It’s hard for me to imagine the oceans as an infinite water supply with the advent of more desalination plants across the world. We have to find a way to capture flood water and heavy rains.

The fly in the ointment with most of these proposals is that the water surplus is near sea level. Albuquerque is 5-6,000 feet. The land between Albuquerque and Lake Powell is 7,000 feet plus. Until you can actually produce "electricity too cheap to meter", which we were promised about 60 years ago, the costs to move this volume of water a mile uphill would be enormous.