Water Wars!

QP!

QP!

Verified User
This issue is only going to grow leading to increasing worse State V State battles that i could see ending up involving National Guard or State police battles in the future if one State is seen to be taking advantage and harming other States and no solution is found.

A high-stakes water fight is brewing between the seven Colorado River states as a multi-decade drought and shrinking flows push the river to a crisis point. Upstream Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming) and downriver Lower Basin states (California, Arizona, Nevada) remain deadlocked over mandatory cuts, leaving the federal government to draft new management rules and raising threats of unprecedented Supreme Court litigation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Click to expand...

i have said this prior but i think there is a solution here in that Canada has near endless fresh water and with the increasing arctic melt and runoff now just flowing down Canadian river systems and dumping into the Oceans, increasing sea levels, i think a joint Canada/US mega project of diverting much of that runoff to various US water sheds in many States could be a win/win.

Fresh water economics would make man made river diversion projects (no pipelines needed as water is not a contaminant) economical, would give Canada a financial win, even if they greatly discounted the cost of the water while providing vital refresh water to many US state water sheds.

Without such a solution i believe many US states will become unliveable or resort to very expensive ways to get water (ocean desalination, etc) .
 
QP! said:
This issue is only going to grow leading to increasing worse State V State battles that i could see ending up involving National Guard or State police battles in the future if one State is seen to be taking advantage and harming other States and no solution is found.



i have said this prior but i think there is a solution here in that Canada has near endless fresh water and with the increasing arctic melt and runoff now just flowing down Canadian river systems and dumping into the Oceans, increasing sea levels, i think a joint Canada/US mega project of diverting much of that runoff to various US water sheds in many States could be a win/win.

Fresh water economics would make man made river diversion projects (no pipelines needed as water is not a contaminant) economical, would give Canada a financial win, even if they greatly discounted the cost of the water while providing vital refresh water to many US state water sheds.

Without such a solution i believe many US states will become unliveable or resort to very expensive ways to get water (ocean desalination, etc) .
Click to expand...
This will never happen as long as Trump keeps treating Canada the way he is.
50% tariffs on all their good , that is BS.
Maybe they will sell us water and we can pay the 50% tariff on it.
Trump is a moron.
 
Tbird19482 said:
This will never happen as long as Trump keeps treating Canada the way he is.
50% tariffs on all their good , that is BS.
Maybe they will sell us water and we can pay the 50% tariff on it.
Trump is a moron.
Click to expand...
Ya my belief of that solution pre dated Trump and i agree, no such deal can be made while Trump is POTUS as he would agree, call the deal the 'greatest deal ever made in US history' after he was done negotiating it and before it was complete he would cancel it, calling it a 'terrible deal' while wondering 'who negotiated it'.

Every country now understands that deals with Trump mean nothing. He will expect you to hold to your end as long as he thinks the US is benefiting the most but then simply break the law and cancel the deal if he thinks he can get a better deal.

So my suggestion is a post Trump one.
 
The energy required to brute-force water across the Laurentian Divide makes this a nonstarter IMO.

And the “prevent sea-level rise” angle is even sillier. Arctic runoff reaching the ocean is part of the normal water cycle, not some new source of water being added to the planet.
 
QP! said:
Ya my belief of that solution pre dated Trump and i agree, no such deal can be made while Trump is POTUS as he would agree, call the deal the 'greatest deal ever made in US history' after he was done negotiating it and before it was complete he would cancel it, calling it a 'terrible deal' while wondering 'who negotiated it'.

Every country now understands that deals with Trump mean nothing. He will expect you to hold to your end as long as he thinks the US is benefiting the most but then simply break the law and cancel the deal if he thinks he can get a better deal.

So my suggestion is a post Trump one.
Click to expand...
If I remember right at one time we had a treaty with Canada to NOT take any water out of the great lakes and transport it any where.
And the south west states have been wanting us to do just that, well if we did it wouldn't surprise me if Trump broke it and starts taking it down there.
 
zymurgy said:
The energy required to brute-force water across the Laurentian Divide makes this a nonstarter IMO.
Click to expand...
yes this is the biggest engineering hurdle to manage as it would require significant uphill costs to deal with moving the originating water, often uphill to a point of reservoirs that could then use gravity to deliver the water to US watersheds. I have read studies on this suggesting a series of new nuclear powered pump stations on the front end (uphill journey), paired with hydro stations on the back end (downhill journey) could manage this and Canada does have the nuclear technology in house speciality to do this for a project this size and scale.

it is certainly not a non starter, nor is it a slam dunk. When you think of the broader questions of 'potential collapse of water sheds' connected to the Colorado river alone and what that could mean, this has to remain a discussion, imo.

zymurgy said:
And the “prevent sea-level rise” angle is even sillier. Arctic runoff reaching the ocean is part of the normal water cycle, not some new source of water being added to the planet.
Click to expand...
Arctic water reaching the ocean is a part of normal water cycle but what is not, at least in mankinds lifetime thus far, is the mass amounts MORE that will be added as the glaciers continue to melt and send all that fresh water into the ocean causing ocean level rise but also potentially collapsing many of the environments that have evolved with a balance of fresh water run off that is increasingly being disrupted.


This project even being discussed requires people assume two basic factors are at least an issue that need to be discussed and considered for the future:

- is there risk of US watershed shed collapse and potentially many States losing mass amounts of inhabitable ground (up to and including entire States) due to no water access..
- is continued glacial runoff going to create not only issues due to sea level rise but also mass flooding (costs) in the river system areas that currently transport that increasing runoff...

If one assumes those issues need to be considered that the economics of doing such a mass project become more reasonable when compared to mass desalination costs or looking at the costs incurred to put in nationwide oil pipelines to have that fluid criss cross america.
 
Last edited:
What AI is responding now to some of my queries.

Q : Despite knowing there are numerous obstacles and challenges to any mass water diversion projects from the Canadian arctic to US water sheds, what are some of the perceived benefits to such a program :
  • Slowing Local Flooding: Climate change isn't just making the Arctic melt smoothly; it is causing massive, unpredictable seasonal flooding that erodes northern landscapes, destroys indigenous infrastructure, and washes unprecedented amounts of silt into delicate deltas. Diverting the peaks of these massive floods acts as a regional flood-control mechanism. [1]
  • The Sea-Level Rise Win: It is estimated that Greenland alone loses hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually, directly driving global sea-level rise. While a pipeline or canal grid could only capture a fraction of global melt, diverting billions of gallons of northern runoff onto land (into agricultural aquifers and drying lake beds like the Great Salt Lake or the Salton Sea) keeps that volume out of the rising oceans. It essentially uses the North American landmass as a giant storage sponge. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Capturing a Climate "Waste" Product: As climate change accelerates, Arctic glaciers and permafrost are melting at unprecedented rates. Billions of gallons of freshwater that used to remain locked in ice are now rushing into the Arctic Ocean. Once that freshwater mixes with the saltwater sea, its utility for humans and terrestrial ecosystems is completely lost. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • The Two Major Historical Blueprints
    Two massive continental water-diversion designs dominate the historical and policy discourse:

    1. NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance)
    • The Concept: Designed in 1964 by the Ralph M. Parsons Corporation and seriously debated by the U.S. Congress, this plan aimed to capture the massive runoff of the Yukon, Liard, and Peace rivers in Alaska and Northern Canada. [1, 2]
    • The Route: Rather than simple trenches, it envisioned a staggering network of 369 dams, reservoirs, and lifts. Water would be routed through a 500-mile-long natural geological depression known as the Rocky Mountain Trench down into Montana. From there, gravity would feed it directly into the drying Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi River basins to supply the American Southwest and Mexico. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

  • 2. The GRAND Canal (Great Recycling and Northern Development)
    • The Concept: Proposed by Canadian engineer Tom Kierans in 1959, this project targeted the Arctic-draining runoff farther east.
    • . [1, 2, 3, 4, 5

(*much longer list of 'potential benefits' has been cribbed)
 
Tbird19482 said:
If I remember right at one time we had a treaty with Canada to NOT take any water out of the great lakes and transport it any where.
And the south west states have been wanting us to do just that, well if we did it wouldn't surprise me if Trump broke it and starts taking it down there.
Click to expand...

if current trends continue. If the US water sheds and rives feeding them continue to dry up and US States are verging on civil war with one another over who gets to pull how much water out of the decreasing supply, i foresee an inevitability to the US just saying 'fuck it' and starting to divert the great lakes and other supplies.

i think a major part of Trump's desire to make Canada the next State is to gain control of the water, moreso than the oil. Trump has referred to Canada as "Major Faucet" and that is not because Trump knows anything about US water issues but because the think tank guys in the US foresee this as a major issue.

One way or another i cannot foresee how this does not turn into a true life and death issue (of people, of communities, of States) if not addressed and i think all options have to be on the table.

Mass desalination may seem to be answer, if things go truly dire, but those energy costs will be arguable more massive and ongoing than in this project.
 
QP! said:
if current trends continue. If the US water sheds and rives feeding them continue to dry up and US States are verging on civil war with one another over who gets to pull how much water out of the decreasing supply, i foresee an inevitability to the US just saying 'fuck it' and starting to divert the great lakes and other supplies.

i think a major part of Trump's desire to make Canada the next State is to gain control of the water, moreso than the oil. Trump has referred to Canada as "Major Faucet" and that is not because Trump knows anything about US water issues but because the think tank guys in the US foresee this as a major issue.

One way or another i cannot foresee how this does not turn into a true life and death issue (of people, of communities, of States) if not addressed and i think all options have to be on the table.

Mass desalination may seem to be answer, if things go truly dire, but those energy costs will be arguable more massive and ongoing than in this project.
Click to expand...
Well as of right now we can't take and transport it with out Canada okaying it, but as I said Trump may just break the treaty and do it any ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Diogenes said:
Is that so? What "treaty" are you supposedly worried about?

I'll understand if you don't know, of course.
Click to expand...
The treaty we had and I believe we still have with Canada NOT to take water out of the Great lakes.
And transport it or sell it to other states except the great lake states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Diogenes said:
Cite it.
Click to expand...
www.bing.com

Does the US and Canada still have a treaty making it illegal to take water out of the greatlakes and sell i - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com


The Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT)
Signed in 1909 and in force since 1910, the BWT is a legally binding agreement between the U.S. and Canada that governs shared boundary and transboundary waters Canada.ca. It prohibits altering water levels or flows in boundary waters without the approval of the responsible government and the International Joint Commission (IJC). This means that any diversion of water from a shared lake or river — including the Great Lakes — must be approved by both countries and the IJC, which can impose conditions to prevent harm to the other nation Canada.ca.

2. The Great Lakes Compact
In 2006, the eight Great Lakes states and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec adopted the Great Lakes Compact, which supplements the BWT for the Great Lakes www.michiganpublic.org. It bans large-scale diversions of water from the Great Lakes for sale or export, setting a limit of 150 million gallons per year for any single project. This was a direct response to proposals like the Nova Group plan to ship Great Lakes water to Asia www.michiganpublic.org. The Compact is binding on the signatories and is enforced through the IJC.
 
Tbird19482 said:
The Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT)
Signed in 1909 and in force since 1910, the BWT is a legally binding agreement between the U.S. and Canada that governs shared boundary and transboundary waters Canada.ca. It prohibits altering water levels or flows in boundary waters without the approval of the responsible government and the International Joint Commission (IJC). This means that any diversion of water from a shared lake or river — including the Great Lakes — must be approved by both countries and the IJC, which can impose conditions to prevent harm to the other nation Canada.ca. 2. The Great Lakes Compact In 2006, the eight Great Lakes states and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec adopted the Great Lakes Compact, which supplements the BWT for the Great Lakes www.michiganpublic.org. It bans large-scale diversions of water from the Great Lakes for sale or export, setting a limit of 150 million gallons per year for any single project. This was a direct response to proposals like the Nova Group plan to ship Great Lakes water to Asia www.michiganpublic.org. The Compact is binding on the signatories and is enforced through the IJC.
Click to expand...


See? You can look things up!


image.jpg​



Did you start a thread on JPP when this happened?

www.michiganpublic.org

Negotiators reflect on Great Lakes Compact 15 years later

The Great Lakes Compact is an agreement approved by the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Quebec, and the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. to restrict water withdrawals from the lakes.
www.michiganpublic.org www.michiganpublic.org
 
Diogenes said:
See? You can look things up!





Did you start a thread on JPP when this happened?

www.michiganpublic.org

Negotiators reflect on Great Lakes Compact 15 years later

The Great Lakes Compact is an agreement approved by the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Quebec, and the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. to restrict water withdrawals from the lakes.
www.michiganpublic.org www.michiganpublic.org
Click to expand...
Well in post 13 I said " The treaty we had and I believe we still have with Canada NOT to take water out of the Great lakes.
And transport it or sell it to other states except the great lake states."
So I wan not sure so looking it up was the thing to do to make sure it was still in effect.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Well in post 13 I said " The treaty we had and I believe we still have with Canada NOT to take water out of the Great lakes. And transport it or sell it to other states except the great lake states." So I wan not sure so looking it up was the thing to do to make sure it was still in effect.
Click to expand...

Well, it's widely accepted that before posting it's wise to make at least a salutary effort to ascertain the relevant facts, in my experience.

Consider this a teachable moment.

Have you no thoughts on this?

www.michiganpublic.org

Negotiators reflect on Great Lakes Compact 15 years later

The Great Lakes Compact is an agreement approved by the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Quebec, and the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. to restrict water withdrawals from the lakes.
www.michiganpublic.org www.michiganpublic.org
 
Diogenes said:
Well, it's widely accepted that before posting it's wise to make at least a salutary effort to ascertain the relevant facts, in my experience.

Consider this a teachable moment.

Have you no thoughts on this?

www.michiganpublic.org

Negotiators reflect on Great Lakes Compact 15 years later

The Great Lakes Compact is an agreement approved by the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, Quebec, and the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. to restrict water withdrawals from the lakes.
www.michiganpublic.org www.michiganpublic.org
Click to expand...
Is that so?
 
QP! said:
This issue is only going to grow leading to increasing worse State V State battles that i could see ending up involving National Guard or State police battles in the future if one State is seen to be taking advantage and harming other States and no solution is found.



i have said this prior but i think there is a solution here in that Canada has near endless fresh water and with the increasing arctic melt and runoff now just flowing down Canadian river systems and dumping into the Oceans, increasing sea levels, i think a joint Canada/US mega project of diverting much of that runoff to various US water sheds in many States could be a win/win.

Fresh water economics would make man made river diversion projects (no pipelines needed as water is not a contaminant) economical, would give Canada a financial win, even if they greatly discounted the cost of the water while providing vital refresh water to many US state water sheds.

Without such a solution i believe many US states will become unliveable or resort to very expensive ways to get water (ocean desalination, etc) .
Click to expand...
As long as Trump is president, our once upon a time good ally Canada is not likely to commit to any deals with the Donald
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top