The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Billy T]

To billvon: I don't repeat your long post 760. - I just note that not one word in it supports your unfounded post 758 assertion that lake Superior's level will fall with out end; nor is there any contradiction of my statement that Lake Superior is one of the world's most constant level lakes.

Your source does note: "Lakes Michigan and Huron set new record-low water levels in December of 2012"
And referenced data I supplied does show that less than 10% of the flow now going into the Atlantic ocean could DOUBLE the average flow of the Colorado River.

 

[Billy T]

crop switching is one sign of a sweeping transformation going on in California -- the nation’s biggest agricultural state by value -- driven by a three-year drought that climate scientists say is a glimpse of a drier future. The result will affect everything from the price of milk in China to the source of cherries eaten by Americans. It has already inflamed competition for water between farmers and homeowners.

Growers have adapted to the record-low rainfall by installing high-technology irrigation systems, watering with treated municipal wastewater and even recycling waste from the processing of pomegranates to feed dairy cows. Some are taking land out of production altogether, bulldozing withered orange trees and leaving hundreds of thousands of acres unplanted. ...

“There will be some definite changes, probably structural changes, to the entire industry” as drought persists, said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “Farmers have made changes. They’ve shifted. This is what farmers do.” In the long term, California will probably move away from commodity crops produced in bulk elsewhere to high-value products that make more money for the water used, said Richard Howitt, a farm economist at the University of California at Davis.

That may mean less farmland in production as growers abandon corn and cotton because of the high cost of water. Corn acreage in California has dropped 34 percent from last year, and wheat is down 53 percent, according to the USDA. Cotton planting has fallen 60 percent over the decade, while almonds are up by more than half.

On its own, California would be the world’s ninth-largest agricultural economy, according to a University of California at Davis study. Shifts in its production reverberate globally, said Dan Sumner, another agricultural economist at the school. ...
The success of California agriculture was built in large part on advances in irrigation that allowed the state to expand beyond wheat, which flourishes in dry climates. It’s now the U.S.’s top dairy producer and grows half the country’s fruits, vegetables and nuts.

An estimated 82 percent of California is experiencing extreme drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Agriculture has been hard hit as it consumes about four-fifths of the water that isn’t set aside for environmental preservation. Some farmers are paying as much as 10 times more for water than what it cost before the drought.

Another dry year in 2015 is a strong possibility, according to a study by the University of California at Davis released last month. The same study pegs drought-related farm losses at $1.5 billion, with 17,100 jobs lost statewide.

California Governor Jerry Brown last week called for a $6 billion “no frills” bond measure for this November’s election to boost water storage, a key demand of farmers that’s smaller than what some groups want.

Storages is not much use if there is every year more need for water than supply - How do you fill that storage? California, will I still predict, end up going the expensive (both in dollars and energy) sea water desalination route as that can be quickly done. US can not do what China did to solve a much worse water shortage problem in the NE - that took six decades of planning and construction. US is not politically organized to think that far ahead - only will fund projects that give benefits while at least most of the congress men/women voting for them have some expectation of benefits for their future election campaigns.

I call this water transport from SE to dry NE China the "half Nile" as it moves half the total annual flow of the Nile half the distance of the long Nile and does a trick the Nile can't do. - It delivers water 45 meters higher than its source (three dedicated nuclear power stations, as I understand it are used.)

For scale note large earth mover - photo's center bottom.
Planning for it started in 1950! US can't do high-cost, multi-decade long projects if first benefit is long after the term of current congress men, so California now rations water.
China is winning economic WWIII and getting all the gold too! No need for it to go to war with US and it is a nuclear ICBM power, so is safe too. China is by far the world's largest producer of gold and largest import of it too. Why? I strongly suspect that in a few years at most, China will issue gold backed bonds for central banks to hold - that ends the PetroDollar system and American's life on "easy street." Central banks have been net buyer of gold for three years now. They would much rather hold interest paying gold backed bonds than no-interest gold.

 

[billvon]

And referenced data I supplied does show that less than10% of the flow now going into the Atlantic ocean could DOUBLE the average flow of the Colorado River.

Yes, and that 10% would have to come from somewhere.

I just note that not one word in it supports your unfounded post 758 assertion that lake Superior's level will fall with out end

You're correct there; it will only fall until the surface area drops enough so that the reduced evaporation makes up for the water lost to any new canal project. (Which clearly the local populace is fighting very hard to prevent.)

US can not do what China did to solve a much worse water shortage problem in the NE

Also correct; the Great Lakes communities are too smart for that, and they've seen what promises along the lines of "don't worry, we can't possibly take THAT much water" lead to.

 

[Billy T]

Yes, and that 10% would have to come from somewhere.

Of course. It comes from sending into the Atlantic Ocean, via the St. Laurence Sea Way 90% of its current flow.

... will only fall until the surface area drops enough so that the reduced evaporation makes up for the water lost to any new canal project...

The Great lakes lose a small fraction of their inflow via evaporation, essentially none in winter.

... the Great Lakes communities are too smart for that, {sending 10% of the excess fresh water now flowing into the Atlantic Ocean}

I would call not sending that now wasted fresh water to the US's SW "stupid" not smart as already they see The US's main food producer switching to higher value per acre foot of water items like almonds. - I.e. by sending none of their surplus water flow to the SW, they are helping force their own food bills up more rapidly than inflation. Recall from my prior post:

Because of the drought, "less farmland in production as growers abandon corn and cotton because of the high cost of water. Corn acreage in California has dropped 34 percent from last year, and wheat is down 53 percent, according to the USDA. Cotton planting has fallen 60 percent over the decade, while almonds are up by more than half.

On its own, California would be the world’s ninth-largest agricultural economy, according to a University of California at Davis study. Shifts in its production reverberate globally, said Dan Sumner, another agricultural economist at the school. ... {California is} now the U.S.’s top dairy producer and grows half the country’s fruits, vegetables and nuts. "

 

[Michael]

Are you suggesting that Niagara Falls would go dry if some of the great lakes water were sent to SW?

Michiganders should vote to legalize succession, form our own currencies (some private some public to begin with), undercut the USD with some of them, and sell some of the water that's our inherent natural resource - to help out some of our new trading partners. I'm certain with a deregulated, free-markets, we could out-compete China. We're about the same size as Germany - I'm all for opening up immigration with them first.

 

[Billy T]

Same old story:

Summary
•The US budget Deficit grew another $95 billion in July 2014.
•So far, the US borrowed 15.7¢ of every dollar it spent in Fiscal 2014.
•Total US Debt now stands at a record $17.7 trillion or 102% of GDP!
•ECRI’s USFIG (US Future Inflation Gauge) now at a 71-month high.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, that title may sound a little familiar, that's because Keyne's pretended his idiotic ideas (which just so happen to appeal to the notion that the State, and those that run it, are 'needed' to keep the economy running smoothly - you know, using Economic "Science" [which won him 1st Baron titled by the State for his support]) were are the same as those found in real Science: "The General Theory of Relativity". After a good solid two generations of Government School "Education" most Americans in 1936 were simplistic morons fully conditioned to accept the State, not as it's Servant, but as it's Leader.

Some day you may read a history book, and find out what happened to the US in the Great Depression. You may find out how the US educational system worked and the educational status of the adult population in 1936. You may develop familiarity with how Keynesian economic theory has been greeted and used by States. You may even, after reading several more books with facts and stuff in them, desist from quoting Ben Bernanke in 2005 when you want to illustrate some objection to Keynesian economic theory, and quit quoting two word phrases out of context when you want to illustrate any objection to anything, and so forth, as a matter of intellectual integrity - a concept as foreign to you now as the workings of game theory and their implications for economic exchange between corporate entities.

Until then, you are not arguing anything - you are simply displaying ignorance.

Non-sense. Lake Superior's water lever is one of the most stable / constant in the world because it stores so much water compared to inflow and out flow variations.

That's backwards, and also misleading re "volume". It's stable because those variations are small in absolute terms compared with the surface area (it's the surface area and depth profile that governs level response), and that's because the inflow and outflow in total is relatively small in absolute terms, and the evaporation loss per surface area is among the smallest in the world for large lakes with human residents. And due to the large surface area compared with the inflow, so that at first it takes a fair volume loss to drop the level even a little, it's possible to overlook a dangerous trend for some time. That sets up a disaster of Aral Sea proportions. Ok maybe not that bad - but the loss would be fresh water.

If you think you can take a lot of water from Lake Superior without affecting the Lake's level in ways that would be dramatic, damaging, and all but unrecoverable on a human lifetime scale , you're not paying attention to the critical geographical facts of the situation. The catch basin for Lake Superior is small, and gets only moderate and fluctuating precipitation.

So if you are talking about tapping the outflow of the Saint Lawrence, do not combine that with some plan to pipe from Lake Superior. If you are arguing like this

Thus less than 10% of the flow over Nigara falls diverted to the lake Mead / Colarado River would DOUBLE the Colorado River flow!

realize that the pipeline is not coming from Superior, or probably Michigan either.

And notice, btw, that you are not only lifting your water a couple of thousand feet , but crossing the Mississippi/Missouri River Valley with it.

If you are going to jack the landscape with Chinese levels of foresight on that scale, why not flood Death Valley from the Pacific? Use colder water from up the coast a ways to change the climate, and desalinate a fraction of it with thermal solar for irrigation. That would be better than wrecking the Great Lakes for Las Vegas casino profits.

 

[billvon]

Of course. It comes from sending into the Atlantic Ocean, via the St. Laurence Sea Way 90% of its current flow.

And yet even though all that water is "wasted" there have been years of water level depression in the Great Lakes, where water levels dropped by several feet. So clearly it isn't as simple as "just use some of the water they waste; they will just waste less." It doesn't even work _now_ and that's without taking a lot of water away from Lake Superior.

As I mentioned before, the local populace is aware of this desire for their water, which is where the Great Lakes Compact came from. They will protect it fiercely, since they know they are at risk of losing it to greed, evaporation and the termination of the Long Lac and Okogi diversions (Canada wants that water too.) A few excerpts from the compact (I will make them short this time)
==================
The waters of the Great Lakes are, for the most part, a nonrenewable resource. They are composed of numerous aquifers (groundwater) that have filled with water over the centuries, waters that flow in the tributaries of the Great Lakes, and waters that fill the lakes themselves. Although the total volume in the lakes is vast, on average less than 1 percent of the waters of the Great Lakes is renewed annually by precipitation, surface water runoff, and inflow from groundwater sources.

A diversion is any transfer of water across watershed boundaries through a man-made pipeline or canal. Diversions may transfer water in or out of the Great Lakes basin, or between the watersheds of different lakes or rivers within the basin. While the impacts of existing diversions on lake levels are minor, they alter the natural flow of the Great Lakes and water returned from diversions may be of a different quality than when it was withdrawn. . . .

The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (the Compact) bans large-scale diversions from the Great Lakes and establishes a consensus-based process for managing the region’s waters. It also is a catalyst for state and regional water conservation measures. Additionally, it sets uniform standards for monitoring new water withdrawal proposals within the basin.This formal, interstate compact has the force of a federal law, with standing in federal court. It was signed by all eight Great Lakes state Governors in December 2005. It then began a journey that included being passed by each of the eight state legislatures, ratified by the United States Congress, and finally signed into law by the President on October 3, 2008.

The Compact is an agreement among the eight Great Lakes states to prevent diversions and withdrawals that would harm the ecosystem created by the waters of the Great Lakes. It is rooted in history and a long tradition of managing the lakes cooperatively. Importantly, the Compact treats groundwater and surface water as one system subject to the same standard, and also includes the following statements about the Waters of the Great Lakes:
. . . Future diversions and consumptive uses have the potential to significantly impact the environment, economy, and welfare of the region.
=====================================

The Great lakes lose a small fraction of their inflow via evaporation, essentially none in winter.

That used to be true. The climate is warming, so the ice that used to prevent evaporation is often not present. (Last winter, of course, being a significant exception.) Most of the water level problems in Superior in 2012/2013 were due to evaporation.

I would call not sending that now wasted fresh water to the US's SW "stupid" not smart

I would call trying to grow food in a desert stupid.

On its own, California would be the world’s ninth-largest agricultural economy, according to a University of California at Davis study. Shifts in its production reverberate globally, said Dan Sumner, another agricultural economist at the school. ... {California is} now the U.S.’s top dairy producer and grows half the country’s fruits, vegetables and nuts. "

As we learn to take better care of our planet, that may have to change.

 

[Billy T]

... Most of the water level problems in Superior in 2012/2013 were due to evaporation. ...

... the inflow and outflow in total is relatively small in absolute terms, and the evaporation loss per surface area is among the smallest in the world for large lakes ...

When you two get your stories non- contradicting each other, I may comment. I will just now added that iceure is correct about the inflow & outflow being very small compared to the stored water. So even during long doughts, Lake Superior level changes little. Also part of why, is the out flow, I think, is only via the Soo Locks and then the St Mary's river - very controlled / regulated flow.

... So if you are talking about tapping the outflow of the Saint Lawrence, do not combine that with some plan to pipe from Lake Superior. If you are arguing like this realize that the pipeline is not coming from Superior, or probably Michigan either.

And notice, btw, that you are not only lifting your water a couple of thousand feet , but crossing the Mississippi/Missouri River Valley with it. ...

I have not studied best route, but yes I would not take water from Lake Superior, but some where above Niagara Falls* (from lake Erie) where there is then a large excess going over the Falls and then into the Atlantic. One does not need to take more than a percent or two of that excess to help the SW a lot - my previous mention of 10% was just to show that the average flow of the Colorado river could be doubled by less than 10%.

Yes pumping water up hill takes energy but you get nearly 90% of it back when it goes back to source level. This "pumped storage" is widely used by power companies to convert peaking generation into Base Load (More efficient use of the capital which is at least 80% of your electricity cost.) NYC's Con-Ed has large pumped storage unit on the Hudson River. Power companies in much flatter mid west are trying (some doing) to compress air into under ground chambers, but that is not as efficient (due to heat generated during compression) as pumped water storage. I think the largest pumped air storage is in Germany and uses old salt mine / cavern.

The Chinese "half Nile" delivers the about 55% of the Nile's annual flow 45 meters higher than its source so they use dedicted nuclear power plants. Here in Sao Paulo water from the Tiete river is pumped up hill (about 100 feet, I think) to get it over a ridge and them the water falls at least 300 feet into the Atlantic Ocean via a hydro- electric power plant's turbines.

To evaluate how much energy would be required, find the level of the Colorado River just below Hover Dam and sub tract that from level of Lake Erie. If that difference is positive, or near zero, energy required is small, very small cost per acre foot. Some of the SW farmers, pulling up deep ground water are paying in pumping cost $1000+ per acre foot.

* There is (or at least was) a more than 100 year old power plant doing this. - One of the few in the US that generated 25 hertz power. I.e. It took advantage of the height of Niagara Falls to make power cheaply - intake and out let only a few miles apart with zero cost for a dam. I have seen the lights flicker in my peripheral vision, but did not notice flicker in the old incandescent bulbs when directly looking at them, due to thermal inertia of the filaments. Also that flicker it at 50 Hertz - much too fast for eye's rods to follow well.

 

[billvon]

Yes pumping water up hill takes energy but you get nearly 90% of it back when it goes back to source level.

It won't. If you pump from the closest source of Great Lakes water (Superior) to the first major lake in the Colorado River (the closest physical watershed) you will gain about 7500 feet of elevation, and you will not be able to get energy back out of it; indeed it would take an incredible amount of energy to get the water that high. And even that is 821 miles (Grand Lake to Duluth.) If you wanted to go 1300 miles you could get to an equivalent elevation, near Bullhead City. At that point all your energy would go towards overcoming friction and again would require a huge power source.

At that point it would be easier, less environmentally damaging and more fuel efficient to tow glacier fragments out of the Antarctic to supply our water needs.

 

[Billy T]

It won't. If you pump from the closest source of Great Lakes water (Superior) to the first major lake in the Colorado River (the closest physical watershed) you will gain about 7500 feet of elevation, and you will not be able to get energy back out of it; indeed it would take an incredible amount of energy to get the water that high. And even that is 821 miles (Grand Lake to Duluth.) If you wanted to go 1300 miles you could get to an equivalent elevation, near Bullhead City. At that point all your energy would go towards overcoming friction and again would require a huge power source.

At that point it would be easier, less environmentally damaging and more fuel efficient to tow glacier fragments out of the Antarctic to supply our water needs.

I suggested dumping Lake Erie water at the bottom of Hover Dam. I.e. at elevation 1232 - 726.4 = 505.6 feet above sea level. Lake Erie surface is 569 feet above sea level. Thus net flow is down hill by 64 feet, (not up hill by 45 meters as China's half Nile is) more than enough to generate power with, but probably would just about cover the pumping friction losses. Here is data from wiki:

Hover Dam Impounds Colorado River

Height 726.4 ft (221.4 m)

Length 1,244 ft (379 m)

Elevation at crest 1,232 ft (376 m)

Also, like the Chinese do, to get "over" tall mountains in the way, you use tunnels. Below is photo of a twin pair, each large enough for 18 wheeler trucks to drive through (and even pass each other with dirt making "road bed" flat.) as they did during construction. (One hauling dirt out with other returning for more dirt.)

Dubbed the “throat” of the eastern route, the 585-meter-long, 9-meter-wide (2,000-feet-long, 30-feet-wide) tunnel will help transfer 14.8 billion cubic meters (3.9 trillion gallons) of water a year from the Yangtze River Basin to the parched northern provinces of Shandong and Hebei, as well as to the Tianjin Municipality by 2013.

But for US to solve the SW's water shortage like the Chinese did their worse one, Project had to have started in mid 1960s at the latest. - US can't do multi decade to first benefit projects (China started their "half Nile" in 1950 and just now is seeing benefits.)

The finished diversion will be slightly over 1,155km long and involves the construction of 23 pumping stations with the installed capacity of 453.7MW in the first stage alone to complement the seven existing ones, which will themselves be rehabilitated and upgraded.

This part of the project will also include nearly 9km of tunnels, from the outlet of Dongping Lake to the inlet of the Weilin Canal, including a 634m long siphon section, together with two 9.3m diameter horizontal tunnels 70m under the Huanghe riverbed.**

Read more at this link about man's largest ever construction project.

** A river in the way - not a problem for the Chinese - See bold, just above.

 

[billvon]

I suggested dumping Lake Erie water at the bottom of Hover Dam. I.e. at elevation 1232 - 726.4 = 505.6 feet above sea level. Lake Erie surface is 569 feet above sea level. Thus net flow is down hill by 64 feet, (not up hill by 45 meters as China's half Nile is) more than enough to generate power with

I hope that's a joke. If not, I will let you calculate the flow you will get if you have a head of 64 feet over 2000 miles of canal. Let's assume a canal about the dimensions of the American Canal, the largest such canal supplying water to the Central Valley.

Like I said, at that point it's cheaper/easier/cleaner to tow icebergs - or flood the valley itself from the Pacific.

 

[pjdude1219]

When you two get your stories non- contradicting each other, I may comment. I will just now added that iceure is correct about the inflow & outflow being very small compared to the stored water. So even during long doughts, Lake Superior level changes little. Also part of why, is the out flow, I think, is only via the Soo Locks and then the St Mary's river - very controlled / regulated flow.
I have not studied best route, but yes I would not take water from Lake Superior, but some where above Niagara Falls* (from lake Erie) where there is then a large excess going over the Falls and then into the Atlantic. One does not need to take more than a percent or two of that excess to help the SW a lot - my previous mention of 10% was just to show that the average flow of the Colorado river could be doubled by less than 10%.

Yes pumping water up hill takes energy but you get nearly 90% of it back when it goes back to source level. This "pumped storage" is widely used by power companies to convert peaking generation into Base Load (More efficient use of the capital which is at least 80% of your electricity cost.) NYC's Con-Ed has large pumped storage unit on the Hudson River. Power companies in much flatter mid west are trying (some doing) to compress air into under ground chambers, but that is not as efficient (due to heat generated during compression) as pumped water storage. I think the largest pumped air storage is in Germany and uses old salt mine / cavern.

The Chinese "half Nile" delivers the about 55% of the Nile's annual flow 45 meters higher than its source so they use dedicted nuclear power plants. Here in Sao Paulo water from the Tiete river is pumped up hill (about 100 feet, I think) to get it over a ridge and them the water falls at least 300 feet into the Atlantic Ocean via a hydro- electric power plant's turbines.

To evaluate how much energy would be required, find the level of the Colorado River just below Hover Dam and sub tract that from level of Lake Erie. If that difference is positive, or near zero, energy required is small, very small cost per acre foot. Some of the SW farmers, pulling up deep ground water are paying in pumping cost $1000+ per acre foot.

* There is (or at least was) a more than 100 year old power plant doing this. - One of the few in the US that generated 25 hertz power. I.e. It took advantage of the height of Niagara Falls to make power cheaply - intake and out let only a few miles apart with zero cost for a dam. I have seen the lights flicker in my peripheral vision, but did not notice flicker in the old incandescent bulbs when directly looking at them, due to thermal inertia of the filaments. Also that flicker it at 50 Hertz - much too fast for eye's rods to follow well.

yes lets just start playing around with 20% of the worlds standing fresh water. what could possibly go wrong. just looking at the base risks of what your proposing no intelligent person would propose it.

 

[Billy T]

yes lets just start playing around with 20% of the worlds standing fresh water. what could possibly go wrong. just looking at the base risks of what your proposing no intelligent person would propose it.

Where are your getting that 20%? No one speaking of taking ANY WATER from Lake Superior. Not even taking a significant amount of the fresh water now flowing down the St. Lawrence Sea Way into the sea - total waste of fresh water. 2% of that flow now being wasted would help the SW cope with the drought, which was predicted by Scripts to be probable some years ago.

 

[Billy T]

I hope that's a joke. If not, I will let you calculate the flow you will get if you have a head of 64 feet over 2000 miles of canal. Let's assume a canal about the dimensions of the American Canal, the largest such canal supplying water to the Central Valley. ...

No the final head would be more like 500 feet (height of Hover Dam)* It would be at that height by being pumped up - much like water from the Tiete is first pumped up ~100 feet to them descends more than 300 feet through hydro- electric turbines making significant net power. - only reason it is done as the water is discarded into the Atlantic Ocean.

There would be tunnels, etc. not open canal - look what and how China did much more.

* On second thought, probably best to just dump Lake Erie water into lake Mead, and use the existing turbines to generate power instead of build new ones - I.e. the final head is that of Hover Dam with more water in lake Mead.

 

[pjdude1219]

Where are your getting that 20%?

its fairly common knowledge that the fresh lakes comprise 20% of the world's standing fresh water. its one of those interest facts that's floating around. maybe all that time in brazil preaching doom and gloom and coming up with crack pot ideas effecting your research.

No one speaking of taking ANY WATER from Lake Superior.

your talking about playing with great lakes. what you do to one will effect the others.

Not even taking a significant amount of the fresh water now flowing down the St. Lawrence Sea Way into the sea - total waste of fresh water. 2% of that flow now being wasted would help the SW cope with the drought, which was predicted by Scripts to be probable some years ago.

your right letting the fresh water carry nutrients into the sea in new england is such a terrible idea.even if your right which i highly doubt you are given your educational investment into economics you have serious economic and ecological concerns to deal with. if your wrong the results could be catastrophic. like altering the climate of new england catastrophic.

 

[billvon]

On second thought, probably best to just dump Lake Erie water into lake Mead, and use the existing turbines to generate power instead of build new ones - I.e. the final head is that of Hover Dam with more water in lake Mead.

OK so you have ~500 feet of head to generate. Let's say you want to do 10,000 cubic feet per second (about half the volume of the Colorado.) How much power would you need, before you get any power back from Hoover? Assume zero friction and 100% efficient motors and pumps.

There would be tunnels, etc

OK again. Let's say we set a max height of 1100 feet to match Lake Mead. How long would the tunnel have to be? What is, currently, the longest tunnel in the world?

 

[Billy T]

I'm not going to continue suggestions or countering false assertion on this subject. I just think US could (has the technical know how) do project on half the scale that China has done. They use tunnels for small faction of the 1200 km they move half the flow of the Nile - We are speaking of a tiny fraction of that flow - say less the 2% of the St Lawrence Sea Way flow. Reason why that US can not solve its SW water shortage problem is not technical, but political.

Nile's annual flow is 84.5 Km^3 I'll let some one else convert that to cubic feet per second, but assure you It is much more than the 10,000 ft^3 Billion mentioned as "half a Colorado."

 

[billvon]

I'm not going to continue suggestions or countering false assertion on this subject. I just think US could do project on half the scale that China has done.

It would be wise to do the math, so that you have some factual basis on which to make that claim.

We can indeed get water many ways. We could tow icebergs from Antarctica. We could flood Death Valley. We could build hundreds of massive desalinators. We could use less water for aesthetic/recreational uses, thus leaving more for agriculture.

Or we could build a canal that would be by far the longest, most expensive and least efficient in the world and take the water forcibly from several states who have vowed to protect it.

Deciding which of the above to consider is more of a question of common sense than of politics.

 

[pjdude1219]

I'm not going to continue suggestions or countering false assertion on this subject. I just think US could (has the technical know how) do project on half the scale that China has done. They use tunnels for small faction of the 1200 km they move half the flow of the Nile - We are speaking of a tiny fraction of that flow - say less the 2% of the St Lawrence Sea Way flow. Reason why that US can not solve its SW water shortage problem is not technical, but political.

no the reason the US doesn't "solve" the problem with your solution is because its a really stupid idea. stick to ranting and raving about to america's down fall do economics pet theories that may or may not come to pass. don't get pissy cause people are calling your stupid idea a stupid idea.