As someone who lives on the great lakes, I would do EVERYTHING in my power to stop this. If the people in the American southwest want our water, they are welcome to move here. We are not going to allow our natural resources to be plundered by people living in the desert who want green lawns and swimming pools.
@@sowmitriswamy6718 So, i'm gonna be honest, I'm really not the healthiest human so while this point might work on most people my diet is 90% high fructose corn syrup grown in the Midwest. I honestly can't remember the last time I had a vegetable that wasn't tomato sauce LOL
I would blow it up as well I would never let those people out west to get the great lakes water. They don’t deserve any of it and they wasted all of the water that is gone they used to have. Just a bunch of valley girl idiots out there that use like every other word! Likeee omgahhh nooowahhh stopahhh.
The Western desert gets NOTHING from the Great lakes.. They did the numbers, to build enough power plants and having a big enough pipeline, would cost 4 to 6 TRILLION dollars to deliver the amount of water needed to save California alone, not counting the other states like New Mexico and Arizona.. Then there would be the operating costs to pump and maintain. They'll get not a drop, they made the decision to live in a Desert, they didn't know that there isn't very much water in a Desert like climate..?? I learned that in 3rd grade, so lots of Luck California, you get Jack Squat.
The rules here in the Great Lakes region dictate that only areas that are part of the basin (that is, ground water flows to the lakes) are able to take water from the system. Where I live we have Lake Michigan water in our homes. The town 5 miles south of us has to use wells instead, and the water is so poor that most people use bottled water for drinking, and some even use it for bathing and clothes washing. If the rules don't allow this particular town that is only a couple miles out of the Lake Michigan basin to remove water from the lake, rest assured no one involved in the management of the Great Lakes is going to allow the people currently wasting and rapidly depleting the water in the Southwest to destroy our Lakes.
Yeah....BUT....if everyone is so concerned about Lake levels...why do YOU think it's OK to let the Lakes go on a rampage, like they did two years ago, and DESTROY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of shorelines? Those lakes can become wild beasts and letting them destroy property, willy nilly, with out the control of high levels... is as bad as lowering lake levels to supply the South West. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron should be "maintained" at one STANDARD level. Any excess should be gotten rid of by any means necessary INCLUDING selling it to the South West!
@@badguy1481 That still wouldn't be a solution to the problem, because an inconsistent lake level wouldn't be reliable or profitable. You need to be able to guarantee a certain amount of continual running water to be able to invest in infrastructure like building a pipeline from the great lakes to the southwest. The great lakes would essentially need to always be above average to make such infrastructure reliable or profitable. If you're a municipality in the southwest that depends on that pipeline and we go through a decade or more of shortage like we did from 99-2015 in the great lakes then your water source would turn off and you be left without.
As someone from the great lakes, I can tell you that if they start building the pipeline, they'll need to have really good security for the workers and long term security for the pipeline itself.
Don't worry, it'll never happen. There's an international agreement. Canada is part owner of those lakes, they're all connected and it wouldn't matter that all of Lake Michigan is in the US.
Honestly of all the talk about general revolts or full-on guerilla warfare in the US, this would be the real one. The Upper Great Lakes states would straight up take up arms to stop this. The water up there is integral to everything. This could NEVER happen. You would even have National Guards revolting to stop it.
I remember reading a book called " The Late Great Lakes". The one thing I vividly remember is a story where a massive southwest aquifer was completely drained due to the insane demand (people insisting on having green lawns and golf courses, pools, etc.) in a region that isn't set up for such things. In steps the Army Corps of Eng to save the day by designing a pipeline to tap into Lake Michigan. It never gained traction and I hope it never does.
it won't. We don't have the tech to pull it off. Moving several million gallons of water a minute would be required, 3/4 miles UP a mountain. Never going to happen. The power grid itself won't support it. All this aqueduct nonsense ignores the simple fact that aqueducts work WITH gravity, not against it. Same with canals. I'm more worried about the unhinged people purposely moving INTO a decades long drought situation, then complaining about it after the fact. Their bad choices isn't anyone's problem but theirs.
It would be cheaper and faster to build a huge desalination plant instead of our great lakes being raided. People in the southwest choose to live there, so deal with your problems. Hand off the Great Lakes!
As a Michigander I can tell you that someone is under estimating the impact this would have on the Great Lakes. There have been times when there has been concern over lowering lake levels due to drought and lack of rain and snowfall. As hard as this is to believe I remember years ago the State asking Detroiters to curb their water usage.Then there is the international issue with Canada. Perhaps a better idea would be for people not to move to a desert State. Just as its name implies a desert is an arid place, meaning very little precipitation. And for the record, yes, we are extremely protective of our Great Lakes.
Underestimating, not overestimating. They can build desalinization plants like they do in the middle east, but they don't want to because of the "impact" it would have on the marine wildlife off their coasts. But yeah, lets take the Great Lakes. You know how Michigan is a mitten? Well that is my middle finger they are looking at.
No on needs to move "to a Desert State" anymore. There are already 60M there. They have babies, too! Not only that, but the same people grow your salads, eggs, meat & wine year round, and produce all through your Winter!
I have lived in Wisconsin, a mile away from Lake Michigan. And ever since like 2008, there’s a Great Lakes compact between all the states bordering the lakes which will forbid a pipeline being built to send water to other states. The southwest has wanted to build a pipeline for water for a decade or two now. Won’t happen, they deserve to shrivel and die for living in a desert and growing highly water intensive crops ( cotton, alfalfa, almonds etc) along with raising cattle too.
1980's lake Michigan was high and same talks. then went to record lows from dry winters how back up. Nature is cyclical. There is also big demands in far suburbs in Chicago area for water from Lake Michigan since the deep wells are getting low/dry. So it is not only a sw issue.
To hell with that idea! Draining the Great Lakes so idiots can grow grass in the desert cannot be allowed to happen. Desalinate Ocean water, it's right there!
@@gorkyd7912 no they don't last time I was at the grocery store in the midwest most of it was locally grown or imported from China. Yes I look because I specifically don't buy California products. Also he was not wrong California's 3 biggest crops are indeed Dairy, Grapes and Almonds don't try to say negatory either that is directly off California's Ag site. Also Hammer is also correct most Midwesterners will happily pay the extra to buy local so we don't have to hear the but they grow your food argument.
@@hammerhand5059 Along with about 80-90% of most other varieties produced and consumed by you only a daily basis. Know what you're talking about before commenting.
Here is something to consider: When the Flint Water Crisis happened, it came out that the Granholm administration had made a deal with Nestle to take 400 million gallons of water from the Great Lakes per day. Not monthly, not yearly, but daily. Yet, Nestle would not cease production to make bottled water for Flint. You know who did? Anhauser Busch in St. Louis. They literally stopped making beer so that canned water could be shipped directly to Flint. Given this, I do not see fresh water going from any lake via aqueduct to the Southwest, simply because of Chicago and Detroit, two major cities on the shores of the Great Lakes that would definitely put up a fight. Further cities include Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, and Buffalo. And that doesn't even include Canadian cities that are along the shores of the Great Lakes. On a philosophical level, I myself think that the Upper Midwest should not be responsible for the mismanagement of water in the Southwest and in California. And if forestry and land management is any indication, anybody who thinks that the Southwest and West Coast is more worthy to have the water of the Great Lakes than the people who live around the lakes, is delusional and out of their minds. I can honestly and forthrightly say that it is not the responsibility of the people around the Great Lakes to take care of the people in the Southwest, when those people never assisted in helping the residents of Flint.
Firstly, the Great Lakes are a shared water resource of Canada and the US. The US can't unilaterally siphon water from it because it's not theirs to take. Secondly, bulk water exports from the Great Lakes (and Canada) are illegal ....and for good reason. Thirdly, the US southwest doesn't get to destroy the eco-system of another region or country to replenish its own.
even if the main water usage in the southwest (done with water FROM the southwest) is to grow produce sold to people in the midwest? the argument of permanent water removal seems to hold less weight when you think about that fact.
@@karlcx no it doesn't. We now realize what causes ecological disasters and this would be one in the making. Once damaged an ecology is lost and that is forever. To continue to grow crops in the southwest, people might all have to leave in order to save what water is there for the crops. But I guess no one has thought of that solution....it's all drain this, desalinate that....
@@dmannevada5981 move the agriculture east to where the water is. The Great lakes Mississippi River basin and the southeast can grow those crops. Leave a few farms out west that won't use as much water. Why are they growing cotton and oranges in Arizona when you can do that in Florida?
My mother is geologist and has specialized in ground water. She is a firm believer that the water in the Great Lakes was a one time gift from receding glaciers during the last ice age in North America. We should be very careful when considering how to manage this incredible gift. I personally think they represent yet another reason why the region will see a population increase in the future.
The Great Lakes dried up into a chain of dead seas connected by a river 7,000 years ago and scuba diving archeologists have found caribou traps in areas that are now covered by over 100 feet of water. 15,000 years ago northern Utah was covered by a lake larger than Lake Michigan and you can still see the ancient shoreline on the Wasatch Mountains surrounding Salt Lake City and the airport and city would have been covered by around a thousand feet of water.
Two years ago a company in Iowa wanted to ship 2 billion gallons of water a year from the Jordan Aquifer out to western states. It was met with incredible resistance and it came to nothing. The backlash to this proposal is only and indicator of how large the backlash would be to building a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the SouthWest.
we don't own half of the lakes. canada better watch out cause we will be at war with them over water one day before we know it. and there will still be all the people fleeing that area which we NEVER should have tried to inhabit
Even if it was feasible to send water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest, I don't think it would ever be enough. You have people down there who waste literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on superfluous things like watering lawns, golf courses, and growing crops that extremely water intensive; all despite the water shortage as it is. If you suddenly give them access to millions of gallons of Great Lakes water, they're just going to waste it too.
Indeed. There's nothing essential about grass or trees for the sport of golf, any more than tennis or baseball. It's a rank and unsustainable display of status. Farmers in the Great Lakes states, too, should be incentivized to grow almonds on their own land. People here eat almond croissants too. In the last 8 years we have had more than enough rain for it. (The level of Lake Michigan was very high at Christmas 2019 ... Wisconsin's east-shore beaches all but disappeared)
I drove through Utah recently and my jaw dropped. Was 100 degrees outside and driving through the desert there were green fields with water spewing all over them in the afternoon at the hottest part of the day. I farmed for quite a few years and watering during the day was a big no-no. Couldn't tell if they were being negligent or ignorant but I can tell you alot of that water is being wasted atleast in the area I drove through.
I live in Michigan. If the rain doesn't water the grass, I don't care if it is green. We respect the water. There was a recent chemical spill and the people are already calling for the heads of the company. You don't waste water, you don't mess with the water, and you don't abuse it.
Speaking as a Canadian on the great lakes I feel the mood it pretty much the same on both sides of the boarder in this region... Never going to happen. good video though. you explained it well
I agree, I would never want to see water transferred from the Great Lakes to the S.W. But, I think the S.W. should start banning the "soft" Ag it produces to feed Canadians & people around the Great Lakes at the same time.
@@kidkanji5295 True The US largest Iron ore supply come from Wisconsin by ship. You can't supply ore to Gary Works, in Gary, Indiana, on the shore of Lake Michigan by truck or train. Its the largest steel mill in North America. Plus GL shipping goes to the Atlantic east coast. South west mess to have farms and large cities in a desert.
@@dmannevada5981 you do realize all the states around the Great Lakes can grow food also I know plenty of farmers around here that grow what California doesn't simply because it's more profitable if Cali banned those imports theirs enough farmers to pick up the slack. Also the water is cheaper for them so ya go ahead and try that. You get outside any major city in Ohio for example it's farm land as far the eye can see.
@@LavitosExodius Every freak"n person from that region says the same thing. How many times do I have to comment that the midwest can't grow most soft Ag after Sept and before June...it can't be done!!!!!! Hello!!!! Good God, do you pay attention???? Only the growing districts of the Colorado has the climate to grow soft Ag year round, with it's most productive time being Oct-Apr, when the midwest is shut down producing soft Ag. It's also why over 90% of America's fruits & veggies are produced Oct-Apr along the Colorado. Do you get it! Enough already, you don't know anything about horticulture, or the reasons why, how or when Ag can be produced in America. Good grief.
Geoff, sending Great Lakes water anywhere is a non-starter. We who live in the Great Lakes region cherish the unique natural phenomenon that is the Great Lakes. Diverting water away from the region would only serve to compromise this natural ecosystem. As you have said, the Lakes are protected by international treaty with Canada and I, for one, cannot think of any plausible scenario that might serve to justify sending this water anywhere.
I agree with you 100 percent. Thankfully we have the Great Lakes Compact and Canada to ensure thieves can not destroy one of the great water sheds in the world. Never trust anyone that wants only a little bit of water, because it would be like letting the weasel in the hen house. Just look how they manage their own water assets. As for crops, Ohio has a bumper crop of corn this year, tomatoes, peppers, and fruit trees are full. I prefer to keep our water and grow our own crops. Want a war, try to build a GL pipeline and steal water.
What if you could not get food that has to be grown in the dessert southwest ? Would you rather buy it form south of the border where they are free to use pesticides that are banned in the USA ?
@@tedwalker1370 I would do what my Amish neighbors do, would do without rather than trade water for it. How about you can have all the water you want at $5 a gallon. How much you want?
@@tedwalker1370 That food should never have been grown in the desert. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples managed water responsibly in that region and even grew crops that could handle the extreme conditions. Now, all that is grown is vast monocultures of crops that require gross amounts of water to produce. The whole reason this drought is happening is because the region's water use is awful. The watershed has been ruined because of industrial farming, water waste, golf courses, suburban developments with lawns, etc. In California, they have managed to drain an entire lake for farming. I live on the Great Lakes, they are beautiful, and the American southwest will not drag our lakes down with them
Am I the only one seeing the big problem with .... - a city in a desert, - farms in a desert, - golf courses in a desert, -pools and green grass in a desert, - pumping aquifers empty to support all the above experiments in human hydroponics?
As someone who lives about 3 miles from Lake Erie and previously lived about 150' from it: Any proposal like this is absolutely unacceptable. It's not just "ooh, it's pretty", it's our water supply, important to our economy, and enables our regional climate to function. We're also well aware that when municipalities started tapping the Colorado, everyone then said there was plenty of water and they'd never run out, and now look where they are. If you want to partake of our water supply, move here so you're sending most of the water back into the lakes.
In your video you acknowledge the effects of climate change on the West Coast it is indeed getting more heat waves and hotter but if you take the time to look at the effects on the East Coast the atmosphere is holding more moisture and causing it to rain on eastern states longer and more frequently this is causing flooding to become more common on the East Coast So imagine this instead of trying to take water from the Great Lakes one source that is to say. we make a more elaborate system that is connected to various rivers and some lakes on the East Coast Then when it rains more frequently and starts to hit flooding conditions in that area a switch could be Flipped opening up a water pipeline to take the excess water to where it would be needed more thus stopping the Flood From happening and allowing the excess water to be transported to the western states I suppose this is more of a water pipe network then just a simple water pipeline I think it's the best long term solution the western states get the water they need and the eastern states that are being hit with more rain and flooding will no longer have increasing Flooding events. I would also like to make it clear that I do agree that Salt Lake City and the other cities and states in the western states need to manage their water better then what they currently do also I don't know why So many people think the only solution for a water pipeline would be the Great Lakes sure on the surface that seems like the most obvious solution because it's in plain sight but like you pointed out in the video it's not the best long term solution however this water pipeline network I mentioned earlier would be one of the best long term solutions if you think about it for a little bit and do some of the research on climate change not just affecting the West Coast but also the East Coast you'll see my point. / Also on a side note between 2030 and 2040 Florida is doomed as they are the state that will be damaged the most from rising sea levels.
The desert needs to suck it up and manage water better. "Moisture farming" is literally a thing, and it needs to be done! Agriculture needs to be reduced DRAMATICALLY here too! It's just not acceptable to be farming foods that have high water demands.
People rise to the level of expectations placed upon them in my opinion. As a California native who has lived in LA and San Diego for nearly 40 years, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of such a project. The citizens of the desert southwest need to accept the reality of our situation and regulate our use of water accordingly. This also includes industry and agriculture most emphatically! When I moved to San Diego 24 years ago the first thing I did was rip out the lawn and plant a cactus garden. For all these many years my bi-monthly water bills report that my property uses 75% less water than the average household in my zip code. To my mind this proves that the population of my area has a lot of room to improve on how they use water on their respective properties. And just so you all know, I even have a koi pond!
I'm pro-xeriscaping, too. My husband is obsessed with lawns 🙄. So we compromised when I showed him that reducing our lawn size with gravel/rock borders made the lawn easier to cut and keep up. It also reduced the amount of water required to irrigate the lawn. Wish I could get rid of the front lawn altogether and plant some dwarf trees and drought tolerant perennial flowers and bushes....😔
As a hydrologist once stated with the BOR..."worrying about lawns is like your doctor worrying about your paper cut while having a gun shot wound to the chest". Watering lawns barely measure in the scheme of things and it wouldn't make one once of difference if every lawn was removed. When the BOR's own data shows that over 80% of the water is used to irrigate crops, crops that contribute to the food supply of over 700 million people worldwide, then you get a sense of the true gravity of the issue. Removing your lawns saved on your water bill, it changed nothing as far as the dynamic of the Colorado's water issues.
@@AStri-zg5xc Did you listen to the stats? 74% of the water is used for ag. not lawns....so I guess we cut off that food supply?? Build the damned pipeline and build it now and stop carping about grass and cutting back.
This video is wrong the best way to get water to southwest is to reverse a river in Oklahoma to use it to build a shorter pipeline to southwest only pump water from the horrible seasonal floods on the Mississippi that way no one is losing any water because it flood water that would flood st Louis Memphis and New Orleans u people out west got to get out of fantasy land thinking ur water problem can be completely solved by using less water u can't save what u don't have u guys still need water coming in from somewhere else or hope the drought ends soon because I don't know if u guys in the west know the definition of drought but it means no rain so u can't save water if ur not getting any water
As a Canadian our military is no match to the U.S. this water problem will become a national security issue . Which translates or means the wealthy will get Canadian water one way or another. Just a thought could population be a factor in this crisis.
@@rickszabo4312 so just give it to the Americans because they have bigger guns? I dont think so. Theyll have to come and get me before ill let them damage an ecological system like the Great Lakes.
This was a very interesting video, I enjoyed it. I live in Michigan and have my entire life. I personally limit my water use because I know what a process it has to go through before it gets to me. But I am also aware that my location is unique to the rest of the world. I live in the area with the biggest fresh water supply in the world. On that one I consider myself blessed because it's never been of any real concern to me. Relocating the water seems more of a problem, then relocating people. I'm not saying mass caravans of humanity, but there can be solutions on this. There are 8 states and 2 Provinces (Canadian) that sit in this region. There is a lot of good land and water here.
@@johndavis2938 Migrants can be stopped.. Those boys in Michigan wouldn't have a problem doing it either, completely different culture from the West. Lots of people are "Napping out in the pines", lots.
Please complain to your municipality to stop dumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes. They all do it. Even in Canada, not as bad in Canada as America. But I'm constantly complaining in Canada for them to stop so we can really complain at the Americans and not be hypocrites
Not only is it a bad idea but the Great Lakes are a Regional Treasure. The amount of push back that you'd get back from the Midwest and Canada would be astronomical. The fact is the U.S. doesn't own the Great Lakes and the Southwest certainly doesn't.
I never understood why the pipeline needs to be from the Great Lakes you can just have regular pipelines from regular waters stations hell connect all the aquifers and water sources in the country by pipeline
@@Benjamin_Gilbert-Lif We could also stop building cities in deserts and planting crops in regions they have no business being planted in. We don't need every type of produce available year round. Sooner or later we're going to need to start working with nature instead of thinking we control it.
It is super expensive to pump/and or desalinate water. Our electrical grid has enough strain and cost. Using simpler local, decentralized water solutions such as rainwater harvesting earthworks as in the country. There are a ton of clever ways to do it. Acquaint yourself with Brad Lancaster's work, he a great speaker and he he has recently updated his two books to include a lot more info. 1930s, CCC-built bioswales in the Sonoran Desert are still going strong and will last hundreds of years more. They've raised the water table a lot, and are filled with life. Use curb-cuts and bioswales in cities and it impacts honeowners' wallets in much happy ways. You have the one time cost of install, and much of the work could even be done by hand. You can then plant site and region appropriate *trees* for a food sources. These bioswales and the trees planted therein can also cool street pavement degradation; and cool the 'heat island effect;' reduce storm drain expansion needs; etc. They may have the side egfect of displacing homeless camps...
Well the amount of water required to fully fill both lake powell and lake mead to full capacity would be like taking a 30 oz glass of water out of a 50 gallon jug to the great lakes. Which by the way all just drain their water into the ocean and is basically wasted. Otherwise they can do things like have California cut off all the food they supply to the states that refuse to help. Which is about 30-40% of the fresh foods for most of the country. So you can start living off of corn, beef, chicken and wheat and forget about most of the produce you currently enjoy on a daily basis
@@jasons5916 The difference is that we BUY your food. You want to STEAL our water. We can always cut a little more forest if we need to produce food. Once you take water out of the Great Lakes Water Shed, it's functionally gone. Also, it is not like we can't start growing more food here if need be. What do you really need for that? Land and water? We have plenty of both.
@@JakePyre No one is piping water 1500 miles for free and even bottled water that comes from municipal sources has to pay for the water that is used. Piped water would cost the price of the water at the source or the rights plus what it costs to transport it.
@@jasons5916 We already get robbed for water rights to pump it out of the ground here. Nestle pumped millions of gallons of water out of Michigan and paid a whopping 200 dollars a year for the rights. No one in this region is looking to allow that to happen again. Besides, selling it at cost plus expenses to transport is such a bad price for the Great Lakes region, even if it was for sale. Especially since when it is pumped to another region, the water is nonrenewable.
@@jasons5916 Midwest grows plenty of our own food. Don't need yours. Fly over any state between the rockies & appalachians and north of Texas. Farms beyond count, where Nature has provided the conditions for farming without needing to pipe water for thousands of miles.
First time I've heard of anyone proposing taking water from the great lakes to the southwest. The active proposals are to bring water from the Mississippi River, which is a shorter distance and involves fewer geographical barriers. Nevertheless, the evident solution to the water situation in the southwest is, first, to recognize that the desert is not a good place to be growing most crops. Second, the really large source of water is the ocean; nuclear-powered desalination ought to be investigated. But that requires us to discard our prejudices against nuclear power generation.
Accaully desalination is the answer. But California refuses to do this. Yet they steal the water from the Colorado. I say pull it from the Gulf and pipe it right next to the Rio Grange. This way there is less height to move it up. ( only about 4000 feet) Tap El Paso into it as well with a clause. That they are to stop taking water from surrounding areas. From El Paso go next to I-10 to Phoenix. Then north to Flagstaff then to Winnemucca. And DONT LET CALIFORNIA have any of it. This will give water to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Neveda. Don't get me wrong. I believe in water management. But some areas have lost water to other areas. Its not the areas that lost waters fault. It the pigs in areas like El Paso. That stole it. 50 years and the water table dropped 200 feet due to EL Paso. That is water in the 1950 was at 300 feet down. Now it over 500 feet to water. And it's not coming back, because they drained it, and keep draining, a basin. Oh and that not global warming. Its too many people in an area.
Dude one sudden irreversible climate change is what is happening. Just look around you. What will that mean? Abrupt collapse of civilization absofucinlutely could be, lol! So worse case scenario, imagine 90% of people gone, don’t care what “you” think the possibility of that happening is. I care about those 10% that are workin their butts off to survive in that strange new world the fossil fuels industry gave us! Just when they think they might make it your world kicksemintheass with a near by not decommissioned nuke plant melting down! Think of the difference in Nagasaki and Chernobyl the latter still being a wasteland, where as Nagasaki being rebuilt a few years later! Melt downs very, very bad and every plant that is not properly decommissioned will melt down! So no, fuck no not even if the odds are a thousand to one, sudden irreversible climate change moves exponentially faster now that 400ppm CO2 was breached! Yes we are talking millions of years ago when it naturally happened shit hit the fan fast even though back then took hundreds of thousands of years for CO2 to go from 200ppm to 400ppm once it reached that it became unbearable real fast, just another degree or two and those without air conditioning will soon not have the energy necessary to sweat. Unfortunately when you stop sweating you die! Funny how few deaths it takes to collapse civilization! It’s an exponential domino effect which is what makes the climate deniers so absofuckinlutly dangerously insane! Unless you don’t mind the demise of the human race! And no anyone waiting for the rapture shouldn’t even be allowed to make any long term decisions about theirselves!
@@TheLosamatic 90% of the population gone would be a good thing. And there is no change in climate. Thats a hoax. I don't know. Maybe you are just believing lies those hippies are telling, because you are young. But climate change is a hoax. What is real is an explosion of population in areas that can't take it.
Two things you didn't mention regarding Great Lakes water, first, the water level of the Great Lakes rises and falls with the weather. In drought conditions it goes down and in wet times fills up by as much as six feet of difference. There are about 140 commercial ports on the Great Lakes. That is a lot of shipping and a lot of jobs that depend on lake level. Once people outside the Great Lakes Basin start drawing on the water and relying on it, how do you turn off their tap when the lake levels naturally go down? The lakes have gone down about 25 inches since 2020 naturally without any such pipeline as that proposed. Would people accept someone saying, "sorry, you'll just have to wait a few years for the lakes to come back up." Once the tap is open it will be very hard to shut it off. If the natural waterway goes too low, and the ports can't work, what do the people in the Great Lakes region do to ship and receive goods that now go through the ports? I understand the people in the Southwest have jobs and lives and needs, but so do the people in the Great Lakes region. Nothing is gained by sacrificing one for the other. Second, The American Southwest is a historic drought area on our planet. You can't fix that. To ship water from other parts of the country will only make it possible for more people to live there and increase the demand on scarce resources and the need to move yet more water. If you did use Great Lakes water to try and fix that problem you would only make the demand on Great Lakes water that much worse. The Southwest region must live on their available resources and people should not continue to move to an area where the land doesn't have the carrying capacity. There are other places in the country available for people to move without the cost and environmental damage posed by such a pipeline.
As someone who grew up near Lake Michigan and still currently living 5 minutes from the lake, there is no way in hell we are willing to divert any of our Great Lakes water to the western US. 😅 Hence the pact to protect the Great Lakes. We need to preserve them. Plus they are vital shipping routes as well for large ships and such. The states that surround the Great Lakes are the only states that get to use them for drinking water. And even then we limit it to towns and cities that are within the Great Lakes water shed area. So basically any town more than 50 miles from the lakes are out of luck for the most part. My town has Lake Michigan water as it's main source. Just like Chicago does. But my town is right on the lake shore. 🙂
Where do you think a lot of food you "midwesterners" eat comes from? Central Valley, California grows plenty of food that is transported east and all over the world. It's not your water but the planet's water and can be used however it wants to by the planet and its inhabitants. We're all on this rock (boat) together...
@@eep-squared bel8ve or not most stores here will buy from locals long befor sourcing from Cali. We grow far superior foods on quality not quantity. We will starve long befor we come off the waters that feed us here personally. Your best bet is stop thinking money is the solution. We don't want your money for water. We'd keep the water and we are in the world's best fruit belt, it may be seasonal but it's why we canned in the fall growing up we learned to endure the winters cause it produces some of the best tasting food I'll ever eat. Besides why don't y'all come an learn whe we are the great lakes states and why we won't let you have it. Our natural wonder is exactly that ours as in the collective people that live around it and will be damnded if we let it go to some desert to dry up. We won't starve cause you don't get water. we will use our own ability to sustain our way of life. We were farmers long befor you had a State or a town. We didn't move to the desert nor our we saying you can't come here. Just the water isn't flowing your way anytime soon. As for the Mississippi good luck they get a lot more hostile over there river and it only get worse the more you push an pry at them
@@MrDepodot7 Those States literally have like 5 people that live in them though. LOL! 🤣 We have 34 million people around the Great Lakes. (55 million for the megapolis) Hence we are the largest bidder. 😉
California, being on the coast, should stop taking water and electricity from Colorado River and begin installing more desalination plants. The other states that have no ocean from which to get purified water from, should be the only ones getting water for themselves via the Colorado River and downstream lakes.
Yeah the worst run state in the country. Westerner here, dont support, southern parts and states are vastly less important than the few trees we have left. That water aint going north of sac and sf its not helping. You think you can allow all the people in to use up resources when in the end you contaminate all of it from the top down. Besides, people are moving from the great lakes because they are ruined already.
That's actually a good solution for California However the majority of the salt that is removed from the ocean water cannot simply be dumped back into the ocean We might be able to make use of some of the salt by using it to help preserve meats and stuff Put it on some French fries sea salt style But in the end we would have to store up the excess salt in containers and store them in warehouses Anyway if you used in the Right way taking water from the ocean for drinking and farming is a good idea
@@MrUtubeobia There are some documentaries on separating ocean water from its salt You should check those out and do some research on how the process works Then you'll understand better But the gist of it is this if we Take the water And put all the salt back in the ocean Gradually overtime we will increase the ocean salt content Since the salt will Concentrate more to the bottom of the ocean this will affect coral reefs and fish As well as other types of sea creatures Back in 2019 there was an article in Scientific American About it. Using your idea we might be able to put a little bit of the salt back into the ocean but not as much as we would be taking out Like I said it makes more sense if you do the research. / Speaking of another good documentary to check out is the one about Arctic sinkholes And how they are helping speed up climate change If you look into them further Then just the documentary you see they are a part of what many scientists are concerned about When it comes to environmental feedback loops .
@@DavidJohnson-pu2jh , I have seen some articles on desalination. But, what gets me, is that the oceans loose purified water (moisture) all the time, and form clouds, and those clouds go over land, then rains and fill our rivers. So, when the oceans naturally loose moisture, does the ocean get saltier?
Sounds like the states surrounding the Great Lakes are very protective of their Lakes and rightfully so. I live in the Southwest and at least here in SoCal I’m glad we’re doing things here and there to combat water wastage and mismanagement. Glad to do my part, but it’s disheartening to hear people like Kim Kardashian use over 200,000 gallons in a month for her residence. Makes the efforts seem futile
As a person who lives in one of the states that touch the great lakes, I honestly wouldn't mind giving up some water to the south west. However, we all have to be better with water management, because climate change is only going to make things worse. For example: * lawns simply need to go away - it's stunning that we still have areas where people water ground cover, when it doesn't produce food or really do much of anything, other than look pretty * recycling of water. I know it won't happen because we're so divided, but I'd love for a new house construction mandate that says water from the shower and washing machine can no longer just be flushed away and instead has to be captured into a 200 gallon tank placed in the basement of the house. That water can then be recycled and used to flush toilets, etc. I have a ton more ideas, but we really all need to start realizing that water is going to become more precious than gold within the next few years, so we have to start treating it as such now. Edit: cleaned up to make sense
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 You're a generous soul. I'm not as kind-hearted lol I know if I was from there I'd protest giving any water to the southwest. Much more drastic measures definitely need to take place. And also with population growth in these areas, I mean Arizona is growing faster than the national average like wtf, it just doesn't feel sustainable. The Water Wars are coming!
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 as another person within the great lakes basin, I have a huge issue. THey've sucked the rio grande and the colorado dry. They'll do the same to the great lakes. The mississippi is already drying up. THey want to kill it completely. We can't let them abuse the great lakes, too. Nestle is already doing enough damage.
Some say oil pipelines can go thousands of miles, so why not water? Reason is that hydrocarbon products like gasoline sell for dollars per gallon -- while water sells for only fractions of a cent per gallon, one-thousandth the value for the same volume. It's not economical to transport that much that far without huge subsidies that obscure the true cost. Besides construction, there's pumping energy that will be most of the cost, it can't be all gravity flow. The southwest can recycle and reuse wastewater, capture rainwater & stormwater, use drip irrigation on crops, cover canals to prevent evaporation and line them to prevent percolation. All of that will deliver more water at less cost.
I so agree. I also think if you want all the produce produced out west, you should move out west. Anyone eating any fruits & veggies during January should be ashamed of themselves.
@@dmannevada5981 Mucci Farms has set up several greenhouses throughout the Great Lakes region. Sucks when they can't get their light pollution curtains to stay up, but they're growing year-round in Ohio.
@@nowake Yes, I realize that. BUT...if I called that type of production a drop in the bucket in comparison, it would be a massive over statement. The growing districts of the Colorado are pushing 6 million acres just in the lower basin itself. Could you imagine a 6 million acre greenhouse. What the hell would that look like?
It would be significantly cheaper to build both a dedicated power plant and reverse osmosis system (like that in Antioch, Israel) to pull desalinize water from the Pacific Ocean.
A project like you describe was just cancelled by the state of California. The concern was that removing all the salt from the water, and then dumping it back in the Pacific would create a local area of high salinity, and kill a lot of fish/wildlife in the area. The project included a ling diffusion pipe to deep water, to prevent this from becoming a major concern, however, the California Environmental assessment said it wouldn't be enough. There are many people and businesses who depend on near shore fisheries to make a living, so this isn't an easy fix, but with the ongoing drought, I think cancelling that project may have been a mistake.
@@bskec2177 It isn't just the higher salinity of the effluent from the plant, it is the higher temperature of it as well. Though if they kept the concentrated salt water, let it dry out to salt and sold the sea salt then both issues would be completely mitigated.
That plant in Israel processes 640,000 cu. meters of water per day...while that is a LOT of water in terms of domestic needs (170 million gallons) it is a spit in the ocean in terms of agriculture (500 acre-feet/day). For perspective, the Central Valley Water System (i.e. not including So Cal) handles 40 million acre-feet per year.
All of the world's desalination plants together (Saudi has the most I think) are not even close to enough to replace California's demands on the Colorado River. Good first step maybe.
This has been proposed for many years, and the states/provinces bordering the Great Lakes collectively say "Hell NO!". You want water? Move here where the water is.
I'm from Los Angeles and that is a terrible idea ecologically, economically, politically, and socially. Much of the water issues in these states can be resolved just by improving the water irrigation, purification, and storage practices. That oil pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen. The aqueduct may only be transporting water, but its not worth the investment.
Solution: Tell people to stop trying to live and farm where there isn't enough water to sustain them. It was once a fundamental principle that we settled where water was in abundance. Why? Because it's one of the three things necessary for survival; air, food, and water. If you want to try to live and grow food where there isn't enough water, that's your business. I'll be sure to sign you up as a contestant for the next Darwin Award.
Well if we are to believe geology. At one time there was a lake in Utah that was bigger than Lake Michigan& Lake Huron combined. I guess the climate changed.
@@warrenpuckett4203 And most of California, Nevada, Arizona, etc has been a terrible place to live the whole time. But sure, your lake comment was a real "gotcha." Take a bow.
Utah is considering piping in sea water from the Pacific Ocean to refill the Great Salt Lake. Arid-zona is much closer to the sea than Utah is. It seems like they could spend some time thinking about a desalination project. They could even power it via solar.
The economics of such a plan are completely untenable. The elevation changes in getting the water over the Sierras alone would prohibit such a project. Oh and don't forget the energy for the desalination of that water. The total energy consumption would be gigantic.The math for such a project simply does not work. Solar energy is great but it's just not going to be nearly enough. The math for LA aqueduct works only because it is powered entirely by gravity and the water is already fresh. Not only that but due to the geography of the Central Valley, there was no significant tunneling required so it was relatively cheap to build (considering the distances involved)
I don't get why they don't use the 450 nuclear power plants America has to desalination water. I guess that'd be too smart to capture all the water evaporated out the cooling towers
@@highstreetkillers4377 I do. Because we only have 92 nuclear reactors in operation, not 450, and the vast majority of them are east of the Mississippi, making them effectively useless for such a project.
@@jessicag123 It isn't the cheapest source of water because of the energy needs. It is energy dependent and the oil and gas companies don't want people to realize that solar energy could fix the issue and replace them at the same time.
Does anyone remember back in the late 80's when the Mississippi was so dry that you could almost walk across it? Barges were stuck in the mud everywhere. Don't send water to the southwest from the Mississippi.
Did they have ebb flow lochs in place then? There are dams in place now keeping water tables relatively steady. Westerner here, dont support, southern parts and states are vastly less important than the few trees we have left. That water aint going north of sac and sf its not helping. You think you can allow all the people in to use up resources when in the end you contaminate all of it from the top down. Besides, people are moving from the great lakes because they are ruined already.
@@smokencracker5597 You're crazy or on drugs...I take it you have never been near any of the Great Lakes. I live in upstate NY and have seen some areas around the Great lakes and the ones I have seen are pristine...even nicer on the Canadian side. Ain't nobody moving away from them that's for sure...especially now.
@@MCPorter83 Yeah, and in 2011 there was so much water the COE had to blow the Birds Point Levee to prevent massive flooding disasters in the Ohio River leg of the watershed. There's plenty of extra water in that system, over time, there's just not sufficient storage capacity to best manage it.
@@MrDepodot7 “Preacher man says it’s the end of time And the Mississippi River she’s goin’ dry” The other verse you speak of is “How I’d love to spit some Beechnut in that dudes’ eye And shoot him with my ol’45 Cause a Country Boy can survive”
I learned recently that there are a few desalination plants in California. Maybe having more of them over time could be more feasible if the technology advances. Even so, it will probably take a lot of different solutions to work with the water crises that's in the Southwest and through much of the rest of the country if not much of the world.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing California go into crisis mode about water. Maybe they would finally do some rethinking about how/where they should be spending their $400 billion/year budget. Desalination plants instead of wind farms…. i.e. - water to drink vs forcing electric cars down people’s throats.
@@TheMrPeteChannel So what, that's the price you pay living in a Desert with extreme over population. That area was self sustaining with water and agriculture until the 1990's only because of industrial technology developed in the last century. Those areas have been minimally populated because of the lack of resources throughout history. Thats why populations have always lived in areas where food and water were able to sustain them. .
If we had Free Energy, then we could have as much desalination as we want; we could turn the Sahara (and the US southwest) into a garden. And Free Energy actually does exist, but somebody benefits too much from all of us having to pay them for oil, gas, and electricity, noamsayin'?
In January 1972, I went to Tucson, AZ for the first time. At that time, it had 55,000 people. NW of town was a fenced off area, with keep out and danger warnings hanging on a chain link fence, around maybe 160 acres. I asked someone about that, I was told the Aguifer had been pumped out and the ground was collapsing. Humm. 1972. And people had green grass lawns. I did see one thing that impressed me. A new housing development went up and as I drove through it. One house had a front yard that had a couple of catus in it but the rest was two inches of pea gravel. And a worker was spraying the pea gravel with a green dye. Wow. The perfect yard. No maintenance. Water use? None. Except for maybe, an eight ounce glass of water for each catus. Once a year. If you feel like it. Otherwise? Hey, you were good to go. Northerners go to the desert, plant all kinds of stuff they have in the north, water a grass front yard and now wonder, ‘how can we be out of water’. And throughout history, we know the SW USA has had multiple 50 to 80 year droughts. This is only year 22 of a drought. You want to live in the desert? You build desalination plants. They talked about that back in the early 1960’s. And did nothing about it. Now, of course, they’ll want the rest of us to pay for those plants. To which I respectfully reply, “F U”!
You’d be happy to see that all the new development does NOT allow grass lawns. Water is so expensive now that only the wealthiest would consider having a real lawn, anyway. I see a lot of it in Phoenix, though, but not so much Tucson. They also don’t allow street lights in newer developments and only special dimmer household outdoor lights.
Many solutions to drought are available to us. Israel makes use of desalination on a large scale. They also have developed irrigation techniques which are miserly with water yet grow an astounding amount of crops.
@@SS-yj2le Some people have dogs and kids that appreciate them. The lawns also help keep the houses cool in the summer resulting in less need for AC and ultimately less strain on the electric grid which always seems to be insufficient. The bees and other insects love them as well. They're good for the air quality too. Even with all that, I agree that the desert cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas etc shouldn't have lawns. At the minimum they should get rid of the non-functional grass.
@@cavemancaveman9746 Phoenix and Las Vegas are definitely desert cities, but I cannot agree with calling Los Angeles that. They not only get nearly double the rain Phoenix receives and nearly 4 times that of Vegas, but the coast also gets intense marine layer influence. Parts of the coast there rarely ever even get into the 90s. Farther down the coast as well, the marine influence is enough for the southern most coastal naturally growing Torrey pines to actually exist and the winter rain months are very sporadic with some amounts being quite a bit. Los Angeles would be more similar to parts of coastal North Africa and Southern Europe. In fact, Europe is getting hit extremely hard right now by the same drought as well with the Po River threatening to dry up the same way as the Colorado. For lawns, you do realize places east can and have wasted water too right? Why not use those types of services the lawn does elsewhere? In Los Angeles, the coastal areas definitely wouldn't need much of anything like that. Though further inland, there definitely should be something as that is intense heat that reaches into the 100s every year. Plants like Saxual trees would be of huge benefit and they are extremely drought resistant and hold multiple advantages like also having shade unlike grass. In other places too. Much of that water can be diverted for other plants that can be more practical.
@@jpmeyer09 You can have other uses of that space. Also, a lot of lawns just in SoCal don't need much watering. Especially as much of our own grass is adapted to the environment here.
The Great Lakes states and provinces are home to over 100 million people who will join you in that "Hell no!" Cameron. I'm a native Michigander living in PHX, and most people HERE would consider the idea ridiculous! We do a LOT to conserve and recycle our limited water in AZ, more than any other state, and we're proud of that. If NEED be, we could limit our profitable farming, and we DID a bit of that recently in Pinal County. A recent USA Today (it still spews garbage) editorial tried to frame SW drought as a "national problem", requiring such a canal. But it's no more a national problem than Rust Belt decline was in the 1980s and 1990s, when TX, AZ, NV, CO and CA enjoyed our migration westward.
Question: instead of tapping into an existing lake, why not setup pipelines from flood zones? in other words: setup pipes to divert flood water from one area to a "dry" or drought area - that way, you address two problems at the same time.
I have a very simple analogy for this idea of a pipline/aqueduct from the midlands to the West and why it's a very, very bad idea. Scenario: You are a family of 4 living on $62K/year. You get a 2% raise every year and you save about 5% of your combined income. You don't have enough for a big house because of where you live so you rent. You have one car and the others use public transportation. You live in an area with rent that isn't the highest, but is pretty steep. You have about $250/month left over after all expenses and savings. All in all, you're doing pretty well. Now the government has decided to up the sales tax in your county by 1%, rent goes up by 5%/year and you're having trouble with your car which needs repairs. So now you're having to use credit to get by. You stop or lower your 5% savings just to make ends meet and now have nothing left at the end of the month. Actions: You get a new job or win the lottery to the point of $30K/year more than before. So now you're earning $92K/year. You move to that house you've been wanting now that you can afford it, you buy a new car and junk the older one, reinstate your 5% savings and basically start buying/living up to your new income. What you do NOT do is get the new job and pocket that extra $30K/year. Situation: This is the same as the West living up to/past their water supply, only to be supplied now with more water. Summary: It's human nature that people will say - we now have plenty of water. Water restrictions are abandoned, people don't conserve, water is freely given where it shouldn't be, more people move in now that they know water is no longer an issue. Outcome: In only a few decades, you will be back to square one only this time, you'll have nowhere to draw more water from. This is essentially being bailed out, not addressing the real problem, putting a band-aid over it and kicking it down the road. Disaster looms at the end of that dead-end road. It's not if but when. Meanwhile the river(s) from where this water was taken now suffer with lower flush rates, sediment build-up, stagnating water in some places leading to diseases, possible water restrictions for them, etc. It's just a massive dumpster fire waiting to happen. I don't have the answer, but I know stealing water from the center of the country to feed the deserts of the West isn't it.
Yes. No area should use more water than its property receives in rain. Same for oil, iron, and every other resource. Either that or your ideas are unsupportable.
I'm in Windsor Ontario and surrounded by the great lakes. I would be very unhappy if the lakes were being drained to pump to the US southwest. Desalination plants may be expensive, but cheaper than draining the lakes and who knows maybe drawing salt water and converting it to fresh water could help with rising sea levels as well.
I imagine that there is a surpuls that drains out of the lakes. Perhaps that could be allowed to be exported rather than wasted by going into the Atlantic. If a committee made up of the states around the lakes had to sign off on the volume exported each year, it could serve to maintain the environment and add an income to the Lakes area
won't happen because there are strict international laws on who can draw water from the Great Lakes. If you aren't in the Basin you cannot draw water. I'm in Windsor too and we can use as much as we want because it eventually goes back into the lake. Sad thing is every city dumps raw sewage into them. I been complaining for Canada to stop so we can really complain at the bigger culprit (America) to stop. Just go to Point Pelee National Park in spring before they rake the beaches. It's covered in 1000's of tampon applicators
@essex Farmer it takes the water 250 years to travel through the Great Lakes. And all that water has to go into the Atlantic Ocean. It is transporting the nutrients to the Grand banks that is an extremely rich fish habitat. Draw off the water and billions of marine life will die
As a Minnesotan, I'm going to mention the fact that superior has had it's draughts. It has been dangerously low to the point of stopping shipping from so low water the docks were at risk. (It was a few years ago)
Also, since the pipeline was hundreds of billions by OP's projections, just build desalination plants. It costs are not the issue, but results... Pour money into solutions that could work and would have far less negative impact on others.
The Great Lakes states also stand to benefit if the southwest becomes uninhabitable. Major cities like Cleveland and Detroit have 2/3ds as many residents as they have housing for. As we approach midcentury, the Great Lakes can expect a return of migrants in search of cheap water, low cost of living, and milder summers than they can get in the sunbelt.
Senator Paul Simon of Illinois spoke of this in the late 1980’s. Overpopulation, overuse of water for expanding ag and cheaper water in a desert than the Midwest with just one drought away from a crisis. Amazing how he predicted this very scenario.
It's not amazing. My Dad was a hydrologist/geologist in New Mexico. I remember conferences in the late sixties where it was the main topic of discussion.
@@99guspuppet8 a few things. 1. The vast majority of Canada’s population lives on the Great Lakes. You’d have to break the compact with them and steal water for this to work. It would cause a complete diplomatic break down between the US and Canada. 2. The Dakota access pipe line went through three of the ruralest states in the US and was mainly protested by Indian tribes that unfortunately are some of the poorest and least politically powerful people in the US. 3. Everyone in these states across party lines agree that diverting water from the Great Lake is a bad idea. These states are home to 80 million people and that’s just the US side. You’d be a fool to think that you could get away with this without 100 million people protesting across Canada and the US.
Some thoughts, living in MI, I know that we would never give up our water, period. The problem in the SW is directly related to the population and their consumption. Although I don't recall that you mentioned it, the Great Salt Lake has similar problems and it does not require fresh water to fix, i.e. it could use the salt water that is geographically closer to it. I could see a salt water pipeline being feasible (although probably not financially possible) and inland desalination plants powered by solar energy, which would be practical but expensive.
Same here if this were to ever happen I will find a way to blow it up. I would never let Westerners especially Californians take the water out of our Great Lakes and waste it like they do. They make me sick already. Most of them make me sick obviously there’s a small number of great people that aren’t idiots out there
They could desalinate water with the 450 nuclear power plants in America. Billions of gallons a day go out the cooling towers as water vapour. But I guess that's being too smart to do
I think the little pacific project is a great idea. At the end you put in a thorium reactor which can desalinate the water. You get fresh water, sent to lake mead, and power as the end result.
You do know that desalinate the ocean water requires a lot of power and it's very expensive. It goes against Global Warming. Where we are trying to cut consumption of power the desalinate plant would reverse this.
@@mistersir3020 nuclear power has never been cheap. Hyped cheap in fact they said it would be so cheap it wouldn’t register on meters, that certainly did not work out. Every plant they built had billion dollar cost over runs! Just more BS from a troll!
No point in sending desalination water to Lake Mead. Use the water locally to offset consumption from the lake, so there's less removed from Lake Mead. Not to criticize too harshly--lots of people make this mistake--but failing to notice that your suggestion moves water hundreds of miles at great expense only to turn around and move it back to near where it started does suggest not having thought the process through in depth.
I would like to add that the Chinese south north water transfer project has been a disaster with bad ecological results. China had put the project on pause and still hasn’t restarted it, which says something. We should not make the same mistake here. The cost to people and economics is far too high.
Official Chinese government announcement : July 2022 : New follow-up project for China's south-to-north water diversion begins construction. So I don't know where you get the information that the project is "on hold"???? (Probably from one of the many anti China propaganda channels?) Like in any major project there will be adjustments needed because of unforseen changed circumstances. In fact there is already a thousand(s) year old canal from the South to the North build in imperial times for the transport of water and (food) resources from the South to the North.
I remember when desert communities were destroyed in order to funnel more water to L.A. At some point we need to realize that there are simply some parts of our country incapable of supporting large human populations. Setting up aqua ducts isn't the solution to the south wests water shortage. Not tat the expense of communities where water is plentiful.
@@jamess3532 a few Indians lost a pond. big deal. No Owens Valley to LA aqueduct and No Los Angeles. Good luck with that. Go back and watch China Town.
@@johnnynephrite6147 I only gave you one example, I could have provided more but in all honesty, you're so uneducated and obtuse I would just be wasting my time. Going back to my original point which you unknowingly validated by your short sighted response; L.A. can't survive, just as other naturally dry communities can't survive unless they consume water from sources well outside county limits and those resources are drying up. Why? Simple: there are geographical areas all over the world where large cities and populations were never meant to exist. There isn't enough natural water in those regions to support them.
I saw an interesting proposal the other day, related to this. Rather than taking water from the great lakes though, they suggested taking water from flood prone areas prior to the storms(so instead of flooding the water is drained then refilled by the storm). They also suggested reusing oil/natural gas pipelines that are no longer used, which would greatly reduce the costs.
Good idea in theory, but once this pipeline would be built, it would only be a matter of time before it would be misused/overused. All it would take is a large chunk on money to be offered or a change in political power. As someone who lives in Wisconsin, I have ZERO trust that the west coast politicians wouldn’t try to bribe someone to pass some bill afterwords to give more water than we should to them, In order to get said politician some good press/publicity.
@@ScrawnyClownSnatch Well the floods actually cause a lot of damage and climate change is also making extreme flooding events more common(at the same time as more severe droughts). So moving water away is actually a large benefit to those people who would other wise be flooded. Of course it is possible it could be abused, but also we all live in the same country, so we shouldn't be fighting over water if there are ways to provide for everyone. We don't actually want to drain lakes, even large ones like the Great Lakes, since that isn't a permanent solution. However being able to move water around from place to place would be useful.
@@Lilitha11 If the main idea is to use it as a way to prevent flooding, there are cheaper ways to do that that don't require making a pipeline straight thru the country and the montans (like the video said, it expensive). There are also other solutions for the west to use to save water that are cheaper as well. Ideally, this system would only be used on rare occasions where the great lakes area gets to much water. But the truth is, that would not solve the flooding problem. The flooding happens when areas up here get ALOT of rain very fast and the rivers that lead to the great lakes overflow. So unless we somehow attach every river to this system (which is logistically impossible) it woun't solve the problem. Additionaly I doubt the amount of water we would send to the west in a situation where we have an excess in the lakes, would be enough to solve their lack of water problem as we would not be sending that much in the grand scheme. As a result, a project like this would just be a 10+ billion dollar project, that doesn't completly solve anything and just introduces a system that would need heavy regulation to ensure it is not misused. I'd be more interested in giving my tax money to projects that actually solve the problem. But that is just my opinion. You are allowed your own.
@@ScrawnyClownSnatch Well that is why they suggested we use the pipelines we already have for gas and oil. There are pipelines like that all over the place, so you wouldn't have to build new pipelines in most areas. Obviously you would still have to build some, but it wouldn't require building a new pipeline across the entire country, which would obviously be insanely expensive. If you look at how much food prices jumped up recently due to the war in Ukraine(since Ukraine produces a lot of food to sell worldwide) just imagine how much food prices will raise in the US if California has to stop all farming. Agriculture is the biggest use of water, so if we have to save water otherways, eventually it is going to be that. It isn't just a western states issue if food prices in the US spike. If California no longer produced food, how high would food prices go up? 5 times? 10? 20? Could there be a famine in the US? Could people actually starve to death? It would certainly be possible. So we need to figure something out.
@@Lilitha11 the idea of recycling pipelines is a good idea and Iike that, but to my knowledge we still would need to drill thru a mountain to install the pipeline. Either that or take a really long roundabout path that might not save money (just a wild guess though). As for the food supply issue. To my knowledge, the US tends to avoid importing argacultural goods like produce and wheat in favor of producing it locally, (mostly because it spoils by the time it would come form a place overseas like Ukraine). So the war on Ukrain has actually effected the price of raw materials (like metals etc...) more than food to my knowledge while the food shortage has effected mostly Europe as they are close enough to use Urkrains produce and grain. So the food price increase has mostly been due to inflation and gas prices as far as I'm aware (at least in the US). That said, I do see you're point that the west coast needs something done. Coincidentally, I read a report recently that California just cleared the creation of a new MASSIVE reservoir mave from a naturally occurring depression in the land. By the looks of it, they may have a plan in the works.
As a Canadian, I would fight a war to defend out Great Lakes. If ya wanna live in a friggin' desert then accept the consequences...drawing water from Canada is NOT AN OPTION!
I live on Lake Huron. The Lakes mean everything to the states and areas surrounded by them. I felt the same way when they were proposing to bury nuclear waste miles from the Lakes coast. I’m with you.
California has been having water issues since at least the 80s. When I was a kid in Idaho politicians would post videos vilifying other politicians wanting to sign off on selling water to CA.
One huge problem I haven’t seen addressed so far is the shipping that takes place on the lakes from the Atlantic Ocean to the western ports of Lake Superior. This is a major trade route involving every one of the lakes and the rivers and canals connecting them. Each of these waterways would be negatively impacted by the removal of water. Eventually, shipping would cease due to the lack of enough water to support the huge ships that sail the lakes. No water, no shipping, no goods, no jobs, no income. There is much more to this proposal than meets the eye at first glance.
@@goldcoin2444 I see what you mean, the only problem is that with falling water levels more salt is pushed up into the river. Cities near the gulf that had a fresh water supply prior to this are reporting salt tainted water supply. So it would have to be up river somewhat
I live about a mile from Lake St. Clair in the Detroit area. One very practical problem would be that that lake levels rise and fall. When the water level is high this would not be much of a problem, but when lake levels are low diverting water would impede shipping which is vital for the Great Lakes region. The political problems are fortunately insurmountable.
Agreed. I live in Windsor and it was only a few years ago when the water levels in Lake Huron and subsequently the Detroit River, were only slightly lower than today and many lake freighters had to reduce their cargo weight as they would sit too deep in the water and hit bottom. This cycle of higher then lower water levels is repetitive so any diversion is a non-starter.
Ain't gonna happen! The American Dream is embedded in Vegas, Hollywood, golf courses and to shift that paradigm would take a global catastrophe like a micronova, pole shift, asteroid or similar cosmic impact, alien invasion, sudden global ice age, or the return of disco music!
Not gonna happen. I live in upstate NY. We have drought conditions right now, despite having Lake Ontario right here. And also Lake Ontario shrinks nearly every year, more water goes out than in. A pipeline like that will make it worse.
Lake Ontario receives all the water flowing out of lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron. Half of the year crops are not being grown and during that time it snows. We do not lack precipitation, the main problem is the precipitation is in the wrong season. The north east is not lacking water.
Living in the southwest is a choice I made years ago. I would never expect the great lakes to be taped for our benefit out here, to even consider the feasibility is arrogant to no end IMO. The 20th century was one of the moment when we as Humans made great strides in taming the Colorado river, however the drought is also a reminder that without proper management, we are doomed to loose the progress that allowed us to move into the desert in the first place.
When I was living in Texas we got torrential rain and flash flooding sometimes. At the time I was thinking, we should collect all this water and send it to California and the Southwest where they actually need it. Maybe a water pipeline/aquaduct from Texas to the Southwest would make more sense than one from the Great Lakes to the Southwest. Also this route could bypass the Rocky Mountains, making it easier to construct. I'm seeing a lot of self-identified Great Lakes states residents stamping their feet and saying that they'll never let their water go to the Southwest. Great to know that they're so unwilling to help out their fellow Americans in need. We'll all remember this the next time your region is wrecked by massive blizzards. That's not to say that the Southwest doesn't have to change. No more huge lawns and alfalfa farming. If you want to grow crops don't do it in a freakin desert, for chrissakes. But the concept of taking water from an area that has too much of it and sending it to an area that doesn't have enough of it is a no-brainer.
@@danielkelly2210 That's the other thing I was thinking. I saw one comment saying, if the people in the Southwest want Great Lakes water they can live in a Great Lakes state. I was thinking, where do you think all those people in the Southwest came from in the first place?
We have a treaty with Canada on water usage. There is also a Supreme Court ruling on how much water each state can remove from the Great Lakes. Most states are at their limits.
Yes; the Great Lakes are shared with us Canadians, so it can’t just be siphoned off by either country…. If there was a drought here in Canada, we couldn’t redirect water either from the Great Lakes, as they’re all connected.🤔
@@cpcattin Sadly wter cannot come from just a portion of a lake. Can you empty only one side of a glass? And since the 5 lakes are linked, drawing from any single one can affect the others. Especially since here in Minnesota several of the rivers that fed into Superior have been dry three-quarters of the year recently. ruclips.net/video/t7sBqUUODHM/видео.html
@@williamklett6660 My silly little joke. Great Lakes water to California is foolish and wrong for dozens of reasons. However, there is good reason to explore non-conventional aqueducts from critical locations on the Missouri and or the Mississippi Rivers. Two rivers that have a long deadly and costly history of flooding. The Southwest does not need a new constant water source. Intermittent draws in years of over abundance could keep the two huge reservoirs full. The cost would most likely be in the neighborhood of the cost of California’s high speed rail. (That has no completion date). Current estimates 70 - 80 billion. Newer estimates are near double that.
@@cpcattin My bad then. I had been recently watching about all the mismanagement of water in California and what they pull out of the Colorado River and missed the humor. :) I mean, really, letting a 90-year-old agreement distribute water. Letting 1980s climate models control California reservoir releases. And all the states too foolish and bullheaded to seriously discuss updating...
What if the Lakes were damned up and the excess water SOLD to anyone who wanted to buy it? How much would Canadian and American tax payers in those states surrounding the Great Lakes benefit from that excess water income?
As a Wisconsinite, I can tell you all of the states that border the lakes would tell anyone trying to get the water to eat dirt. Like you say in the video, EXTREMELY unpopular among the people, we are very protective of our lakes. We would rather the southwest shrivel and die before we hand over our great lakes.
What if the lakes were about to flood the surrounding areas and turn all the neighbouring cities into unlivable swamps, like the new orleans bowl problem. Would you wanna give extra water to southwest in that situation? To protect your cities?
This is one of the very few issues that both parties and every demographic group in that region would fight tooth and nail for. People would take up arms on both sides if they tried making a water pipeline.
Just who do you think grows the food you eat? Michigan? Nope....not Michigan or Minnesota...or the others that you claim would take up arms. This is The "United" States of America. Minnesota wouldn't last very long on it's own.
@@johnharrington2400 lol we'll manage. Should have thought about raising the prices on certain foods to compensate for the water usage before begging for water. Build desalination plants. Stop building golf parks and water parks. Get rid of lawns. Allow people to use water catchment. Simple. I've shown this video to two people - one hardcore conservative and one hardcore liberal from NY, both said they'll do whatever it takes to stop this from ever happening if a politician was dumb enough to even suggest this. This is the only time they ever agreed on something and these are the types of people that disagree with eachother out of spite.
@@johnharrington2400 you’re gonna tell me where I eat my food from!? We have farms all over Michigan and the Great Lake states. I promise you we would be fine. Just tells you that ya know nothing about this 🤦♂️🤣 I eat and drink local here. Always have as much as I can. Screw the westerners. They do nothing but waste. Yes there are good people there.. but not many now adays.. all the surrounding Great Lake states would last way way wayyyy longer than anywhere in that sandbox with no water. Uh dur.
As a lifelong Michiganian I think starting any reservoirs by taking great lakes water is a bad idea . Living around the lakes my entire life I understand and felt the majesty of the great lakes , taking water out of them is just a bad idea all around . Once began. who knows where it would end. If people can’t live on the water they have , they should move here rather than us moving water there.
That's a bit closed minded in my opinion. We live in a global society. There isn't a civilization on the planet that relies on only itself. Whether it's water, food, oil, etc. there is something being transported to your area that you rely on. Overpopulating water-rich areas doesn't sound like a great solution
@@XKloosyvv sure we live in a global society, in a world where we all can get fresh strawberries year round. That doesn't mean every place doesn't have it's own character. If you're the type of person who enjoys moose hunting, you're better off living in Alaska than Atlanta. People who move to Tucson ought to realize that they're moving to a desert. Desert civilizations historically never had lush green lawns or golf courses. If that's the sort of thing you want, well, maybe don't live in the desert. Overpopulating water-rich areas might not be so great, but I can't see that overpopulating deserts and then shipping the water out there makes a whole lot more sense.
Would you really want the lakes to be destroyed..by having so many people move too the water? just to have cities like NYC , CHICAGO, L.A! OVER CROWDED AND POLLUTED!!!
Taking water from the Great Lakes and lowering the level of them, would cripple the Great Lakes shipping industry. First hit after the shipping shuts down, is the steel industry, and coal transport, which will effect electric power generation. Since the Great Lakes also is the source of water for Niagra Falls, millions of people would lose power, as there is a very large hydroelectric plant there. The Lakes also support a large commercial fishing industry. The economies of ALL of the states and provinces that signed the compact, stand to have their entire economies devastated. That's millions of people. The people of those states and provinces need to protect the Great Lakes and it's waters by any means necessary!
Realistically, the Great Lakes is outside the scope of a diversion from East to West...the Great Lakes basin is already divided from the Mississippi/Missouri River drainage. Yes, I am aware of the diversion at Chicago...it is the exception that proves the rule, and it has created enough problems with invasive species. If you want water and you live in a desert, what you really need are U Hauls (h/t ti the late Sam Kinison).
The US largest Iron ore supply come from Wisconsin by ship. You can't supply ore to Gary Works, in Gary, Indiana, on the shore of Lake Michigan by truck or train. Its the largest steel mill in North America.
... I'm from Duluth, y'all exaggerate how wonderful is great lakes.. We could do without Lake Superior, only 200k people live by it and I can see out my window the 20 boats that fish the west end... Just build a dam at E end and let it all be diverted west thru Idaho to E Wa potato fields. It's so dark up north most lakes have low vegetation so low fish numbers, we could grow far more potatoes than fish we'd lose .. California drained it's Tulare lake a huge lake, acting like lakes beat having good farms is silly ... As Duluther, you pay me $100,000 and the other 200,000 by it and you can drain Lake Superior. And we d barely notice, and we d plant wheat on drained land of lake superior. Google Lake Tulare, California boomed after draining it. .... People want to eat but whine when people want to divert water for ag, whiners. .. Mexico City was a lake, now 20m live there, so us humans drain lakes it's not the end of the world.... Be honest you all would take $100000 if they wanted to drain local lake and showd how theyd make the lake bottom farmland with a few pretty ponds and creeks , change is not always bad, your towns use to be crap scrub woods and swamps..... Drain Superior!!!
@@MikeB3542 You note the diversion via the Chicago river: That's the place to point towards - the diversion has lost allocation, demonstrating how little great lakes water there is to go around. Thinking that there is a whole bunch of water in the great lakes means there is a bunch of water to go around. Nope, it isn't the case. The drainage basin of the great lakes is quite small. Just look at Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. All three sates are almost entirely in the Mississippi basin. Only the smallest border near Lake Michigan or Lake Erie are outside the Mississippi basin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippiriver-new-01.png Note that much of Minnesota is outside the Mississippi basin, but the West part of the state drains North to Hudson bay via the Red River.
It's actually very simple as to why we shouldn't do this. These lakes were created by massive pressure incurred by glacial activity. The depths of the bases of these lakes i.e. the bottom are actually maintained by the sheer vast weight of the standing water. If you start draining the lakes the base of the lakes you will start a cascading rise of the bases of the lakes. In a relatively small amount of time the lakes would disappear.
2:00 This is the thing that gets glossed over in every discussion about AZ water. If we stopped using tremendous amounts of water on alfalfa and cattle feed, we'd be fine. Instead we have corporate megafarms draining aquifers and leaving entire towns high and dry (e.g. Wilcox)
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf I’m more inclined to think living in the Desert with no water unless you’re relying on another states support is stupid. But hey, there y’all are and every one of you fools need to eat.
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf It is done because desert climates combined with a high degree of water control is one of the most superior agricultural conditions in the world. It's why California's central valley is so very productive, as well as the Snake River Valley in the American Northwest (Idaho, etc). It was precisely why ancient Egypt was so successful. Of course the Nile River was highly dependable the vast majority of the time, and digging trenches to irrigate fields was relatively easy. Of course today, the Nile's dependability is under threat with the dam that Ethiopia is constructing. So much so that there have been talks of war between Egypt and Ethiopia over it.
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf it’s silly to worry what’s thought of your silence but silliness is preferable to looking like a fool when you speak. The best tomatoes ever came from five year old tomato plants I had in my back yard in Tucson Arizona. With a little six mill plastic several old coolers full of water it was an amazingly productive little 12 by 15foot garden for nine months a year, that I kept alive the summer months with 85% shade. Strawberries the size of baseballs, slice a tomato in half and the aroma would immediately spread thru out the whole house! Now not to nock down our friends up north but the majestic sky’s around Tucson most every sunset sure beats those dreary winter days up north, and it sure is easier to add moisture to the air than it is to take it out!
I live in the west and the amount of water that we waste is unbelievable, and you are absolutely correct when you say the solution is within our own conservation and common sense use of water. But water is money and when you put the two together all common sense goes out the window? Greed takes over and the power struggle continues!
Yes, and combine that with political hacks (like CA's Newsom) who are blithering idiots. Yet the braindead voters there keep supporting and electing the likes of him, Pelosi, Schiff, etc. time after time. As far as I'm concerned, they'll continue getting what they deserve because of their combined ignorance.
As a state though, it doesn't matter how much water you or your family save (that doesn't mean go crazy wasting it), it matters how much we save in farming.
We have many water pipes to the Southwest. They're called rivers. They carry the water that is wasted in the Southwest. Sending water from the Great Lakes would be like giving money to a gambling addict - it doesn't solve anything, but just creates more problems.
The Colorado River hasn't made it to the Pacific ocean in over 10 years. The majority of water from the Colorado River is used to grow crops is Northern California and Mexico. That's where we get the food in our grocery stores. If you don't like eating, ignore the water shortage!
The end result years down the road it would probably drain the great lakes. Alfalfa consumes more water then any of the other crops grown, and the Alfalfa that's grown, most of it is ship overseas to people that don't even like us. So I say no
The solution is simple, STOP GROWING CROPS IN THE DESERT! Growing up in SoCal and living in Vegas for a while, I’ve seen the impact of this “latest drought” and it boggles the mind that people are STILL trying to grow crops in Arizona. Plus, Arizona and Nevada are still seeing population growth (more people = more homes = more water needed). Here’s another solution for everyone living in the American Southwest - MOVE OUT OF THE DESERT! Problem solved
I remember reading once that a lot of people will migrate to Arizona specifically because the dry desert air is supposed to be good for allergy sufferers, but the green lawns have negated that.
Arizona desert dweller I have always had bad allergies no matter where in Arizona. Same when in any other state I've been total of 15 different states, Mexico and Canada. I just can't out run my runny nose, itchy eyes and sneezing 🤧
@@opusydaisy6563 eat thirty of Shakely’s alfalfa tabs a day. It will bring on the alfalfa blues. Within five days you won’t believe the amount of water that will flow out of your sinuses. That will last awhile once the flow stops you can cut the number of tabs down if the sniffles return go back up in the number you’ll see it works!
@@badactor3440 surely you jest? You must have removed all process foods, most night shade vegetables from your diet! Funny the ignorance of the voters they have not a clue how dangerous their vote is to themselves for their picks have sold out to the largest lobbying group in the USofA, the food industry! We all have the freedom to buy solid or liquid and consume what will bring on diabetes,and the inflammation which leads to the pharmaceutical industries massive profits as they barely alleviate any pain which in the end their medications are on par with what the food industry poisoned US with! You fools understand that even Russia and China banned many of the USofA’s food additives that your politicians being greedy morons approved for your consumption!
I am one of millions of Michiganders who will raise absolute hell if anybody tries to siphon away our great lakes. I know people in the surrounding states feel the same way. There will be war before we allow our most precious resource to be stolen from us
Water from the Great Lakes is governed by an international treaty with Canada. The US cannot unilaterally decide to pump water from the Great lakes out west.
The US cannot legally* unilaterally decide to pump water from the Great Lakes out west. The US doesn't have a good track record of respecting other countries.
There are laws prohibiting Great Lakes water from being pioed more than X miles from their origin. It's an international treaty. Sorry zippy, moving bv to the desert was YOUR idea.
I live in Detroit and I would be very unhappy if they started draining the lakes to pump a desert full of water to grow crops that aren’t even meant to grow there. I will never understand why they built a massive city in the desert and are shocked that they are running out of water. The definition of a desert literally means that very little rain falls there .
I am against this aqueduct. Build desalination plants...and maybe not build megacities in a desert! It is a concern that we do need California for a lot of vegetables/fruits.... hopefully they can figure it out with desalination plants
You really need to look at decentralized solutions. Lots of water where you're at, you're just sending it down sewers. There are enough brown outs from pumping water and desalination plants would just be more strain. Look into rainwater harvesting, works a lot better than you realize. Brad Lancaster is a great source as well as Geoff Lawton.
You do know that in Arizona some farmers are still allowed to pump ground water without ANY metering. None... They can pump as much as they want for free. Why in the hell would they stop? And why the hell should people in cities subsidize that sort of behavior?
Soil degradation is a huge part of the issue as well. Healthy soil can store water, depleted soil doesn’t. Farmers in California should be focused on rebuilding soil instead of just adding inputs like fertilizer and watering for hours
That pipeline would be an endorsement of people out west wasting as much water as they wanted. Let them desalinate ocean water, and pay for it on a quarterly household water bill.
Counterproposal: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and east river North and South Dakota form a union state and set up forts at all Missouri River crossings to keep out the Mongol hordes to the west who come migrating this way when they've dried up their aquifers
@@josiahhockenberry9846 I dunno man, that's a long way east, administratively... logical borders for an empire of that size would be the Missouri River in the west, extending as far as Williston; the Missouri River from Kansas City to St. Louis; the current southern borders of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and I can't find an eastern border that works well (we may have to push into the hills of eastern Pennsylvania). Not to mention the cultural differences between the midwest in IN, IL and OH, and the upper midwest in MN, WI and the eastern Dakotas that would be bound to cause tension. As such, I think Ohio's interests are better served in a confederacy with eastern PA, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. A union with the Minneapolitan Empire would simply be too large to govern in the near-apocapyptic conditions of that world, if regional differences didn't rip it apart anyway.
I live 20 mins away from each of 2 Great Lakes. The other 3 are a few hours drive. You're damn right we will protect our water rights. You want to farm in the desert that's your business. Deal with it.
The Southwest has created their own water problems by developing deserts and vegetation to survive in that environment. If they’re given access to water sources from the mid-west, the region will find pressure on their water resources. Let the west and southwest come up with conservation solutions and other sources like desalination to solve their water needs.
Agreed, but it's also going to take responsibility for building/allowing desal plants, limiting birth rates and limiting immigration/migration. At the same time, responsibility also lies with other states to take care of their own infrastructure. Unfortunately nothing ever gets done.
6% goes to residential, 5% goes to industry. The rest to agriculture. If these states grew ag. only for themselves instead of everybody else like you, lake Mead would be full. Grow your own food.
When you move water from one basin to another, the source basin does not recover the water lost and you end up depleting the source. This is why it is generally illegal to move water from one basin to another.
@@goldcoin2444 Then the Mississippi would run dry. You cannot move water from one basin and expect that basin to replentish itself. Do they not teach this in schools anymore???
@@goldcoin2444 The basin that creates and supplies the Mississippi relies on a certain amount of evap as if flows to the gulf. Start taking water there and you lose that, plus the amount that would then go into the gulf and the Atlantic changes. You can't move water from one basin to another without catastrophic changes.
@@TomKirkman1 You don't seem to realize that the Feds can do whatever they want. They can move what they want where they want because they have an army and you don't.
One engineering difficulty that wasn't emphasized enough is that Phoenix sits 500ft higher than lake Michigan. This means that an "aqueduct" style solution would not work, since aqueducts rely on water flowing down hill through gravity. A pipeline would have to be used instead, greatly increasing the cost and complexity. This problem gets worse if you try to shorten the distance by say just delivering the water to the upper colorado river basin as some commenters have suggested, getting water to the closest part of the watershed (Grand Lake) would require getting the water up 7500ft, before you consider getting over or through the Rocky Mountains. Even the most reasonable path out to the Little Snake River would require a lift of 5500ft. The amount of energy these high elevation alternatives would take would be absurd.
In a way, you are almost shipping energy at that point. By feeding the water up to that height, a lot can be reclaimed through dams along the river, but also at a huge cost.
This is the situation that should have been addressed in the video from a geologic perspective as that is what the videographer claims knowledge or training in, not the other issues mentioned, imo
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Bingo.. first build 2 HUGE lakes in North Dakota and in South Dakota.. then get Elon to build a tunnel to the Colorado River.. the Romans would have done it this way.. they actually made water run up hill using Reverse Syphons..
As someone who lives on the great lakes, I would do EVERYTHING in my power to stop this. If the people in the American southwest want our water, they are welcome to move here. We are not going to allow our natural resources to be plundered by people living in the desert who want green lawns and swimming pools.
Except that you don't mind eating the vegetables, fruits, and nuts grown there with that water.
@@sowmitriswamy6718 So, i'm gonna be honest, I'm really not the healthiest human so while this point might work on most people my diet is 90% high fructose corn syrup grown in the Midwest. I honestly can't remember the last time I had a vegetable that wasn't tomato sauce LOL
@@sowmitriswamy6718 fine! We don’t need your food! Besides I grow my vegetables
@@Bodezefah Most people consume California grown food especially its vegetables, nuts, and fruit.
@@sowmitriswamy6718
Everything I eat and drink comes from my own state. Much, if not most of the food grown in California is exported for profit.
When the Southwest sends us Michiganders some 75-degree days in February, we'll talk about giving them some water.
hahaha enough said!
I would blow it up as well I would never let those people out west to get the great lakes water. They don’t deserve any of it and they wasted all of the water that is gone they used to have. Just a bunch of valley girl idiots out there that use like every other word! Likeee omgahhh nooowahhh stopahhh.
The Western desert gets NOTHING from the Great lakes.. They did the numbers, to build enough power plants and having a big enough pipeline, would cost 4 to 6 TRILLION dollars to deliver the amount of water needed to save California alone, not counting the other states like New Mexico and Arizona.. Then there would be the operating costs to pump and maintain. They'll get not a drop, they made the decision to live in a Desert, they didn't know that there isn't very much water in a Desert like climate..??
I learned that in 3rd grade, so lots of Luck California, you get Jack Squat.
It's not up to Michigan. There is very strict international laws on withdrawing water from the Great Lakes
Nah. They can keep them. We get our share of those conditions.
The rules here in the Great Lakes region dictate that only areas that are part of the basin (that is, ground water flows to the lakes) are able to take water from the system. Where I live we have Lake Michigan water in our homes. The town 5 miles south of us has to use wells instead, and the water is so poor that most people use bottled water for drinking, and some even use it for bathing and clothes washing. If the rules don't allow this particular town that is only a couple miles out of the Lake Michigan basin to remove water from the lake, rest assured no one involved in the management of the Great Lakes is going to allow the people currently wasting and rapidly depleting the water in the Southwest to destroy our Lakes.
Yeah....BUT....if everyone is so concerned about Lake levels...why do YOU think it's OK to let the Lakes go on a rampage, like they did two years ago, and DESTROY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of shorelines? Those lakes can become wild beasts and letting them destroy property, willy nilly, with out the control of high levels... is as bad as lowering lake levels to supply the South West. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron should be "maintained" at one STANDARD level. Any excess should be gotten rid of by any means necessary INCLUDING selling it to the South West!
@@badguy1481 That still wouldn't be a solution to the problem, because an inconsistent lake level wouldn't be reliable or profitable. You need to be able to guarantee a certain amount of continual running water to be able to invest in infrastructure like building a pipeline from the great lakes to the southwest. The great lakes would essentially need to always be above average to make such infrastructure reliable or profitable. If you're a municipality in the southwest that depends on that pipeline and we go through a decade or more of shortage like we did from 99-2015 in the great lakes then your water source would turn off and you be left without.
@@badguy1481 easy there badguy we can't help people who will not help them selves
@@badguy1481 my god rampaging wild beasts willy-nilly I don't know how we can go on here in Michigan
@@badguy1481 The property that was destroyed belongs to 1%rs boo hoo
As someone from the great lakes, I can tell you that if they start building the pipeline, they'll need to have really good security for the workers and long term security for the pipeline itself.
Don't worry, it'll never happen. There's an international agreement. Canada is part owner of those lakes, they're all connected and it wouldn't matter that all of Lake Michigan is in the US.
Honestly of all the talk about general revolts or full-on guerilla warfare in the US, this would be the real one. The Upper Great Lakes states would straight up take up arms to stop this. The water up there is integral to everything. This could NEVER happen. You would even have National Guards revolting to stop it.
I remember reading a book called " The Late Great Lakes". The one thing I vividly remember is a story where a massive southwest aquifer was completely drained due to the insane demand (people insisting on having green lawns and golf courses, pools, etc.) in a region that isn't set up for such things. In steps the Army Corps of Eng to save the day by designing a pipeline to tap into Lake Michigan. It never gained traction and I hope it never does.
it won't. We don't have the tech to pull it off. Moving several million gallons of water a minute would be required, 3/4 miles UP a mountain. Never going to happen. The power grid itself won't support it. All this aqueduct nonsense ignores the simple fact that aqueducts work WITH gravity, not against it. Same with canals. I'm more worried about the unhinged people purposely moving INTO a decades long drought situation, then complaining about it after the fact. Their bad choices isn't anyone's problem but theirs.
Yeah. Green lawns, pools, and golf courses. How evil
@@hippy1002 pretty sure I never referred to these things as evil, just misplaced.
It would be cheaper and faster to build a huge desalination plant instead of our great lakes being raided. People in the southwest choose to live there, so deal with your problems. Hand off the Great Lakes!
Bad idea!
As a Michigander I can tell you that someone is under
estimating the impact this would have on the Great Lakes. There have been times when there has been concern over lowering lake levels due to drought and lack of rain and snowfall. As hard as this is to believe I remember years ago the State asking Detroiters to curb their water usage.Then there is the international issue with Canada. Perhaps a better idea would be for people not to move to a desert State. Just as its name implies a desert is an arid place, meaning very little precipitation. And for the record, yes, we are extremely protective of our Great Lakes.
Underestimating, not overestimating. They can build desalinization plants like they do in the middle east, but they don't want to because of the "impact" it would have on the marine wildlife off their coasts. But yeah, lets take the Great Lakes. You know how Michigan is a mitten? Well that is my middle finger they are looking at.
Many of those who live there moved from the mid west. So, maybe they should have stayed back east?
No on needs to move "to a Desert State" anymore. There are already 60M there.
They have babies, too!
Not only that, but the same people grow your salads, eggs, meat & wine year round, and produce all through your Winter!
I have lived in Wisconsin, a mile away from Lake Michigan. And ever since like 2008, there’s a Great Lakes compact between all the states bordering the lakes which will forbid a pipeline being built to send water to other states. The southwest has wanted to build a pipeline for water for a decade or two now. Won’t happen, they deserve to shrivel and die for living in a desert and growing highly water intensive crops ( cotton, alfalfa, almonds etc) along with raising cattle too.
1980's lake Michigan was high and same talks. then went to record lows from dry winters how back up. Nature is cyclical. There is also big demands in far suburbs in Chicago area for water from Lake Michigan since the deep wells are getting low/dry. So it is not only a sw issue.
To hell with that idea! Draining the Great Lakes so idiots can grow grass in the desert cannot be allowed to happen. Desalinate Ocean water, it's right there!
But idiot's around the Great Lakes are stealing water from people of the S.W.!
They're growing your food most likely so this kind of comment strikes me as ignorant.
@@hammerhand5059 That's a negatory there hammer hand. California's three biggest things start with W.
@@gorkyd7912 no they don't last time I was at the grocery store in the midwest most of it was locally grown or imported from China. Yes I look because I specifically don't buy California products. Also he was not wrong California's 3 biggest crops are indeed Dairy, Grapes and Almonds don't try to say negatory either that is directly off California's Ag site. Also Hammer is also correct most Midwesterners will happily pay the extra to buy local so we don't have to hear the but they grow your food argument.
@@hammerhand5059 Along with about 80-90% of most other varieties produced and consumed by you only a daily basis. Know what you're talking about before commenting.
Here is something to consider:
When the Flint Water Crisis happened, it came out that the Granholm administration had made a deal with Nestle to take 400 million gallons of water from the Great Lakes per day. Not monthly, not yearly, but daily.
Yet, Nestle would not cease production to make bottled water for Flint. You know who did? Anhauser Busch in St. Louis. They literally stopped making beer so that canned water could be shipped directly to Flint.
Given this, I do not see fresh water going from any lake via aqueduct to the Southwest, simply because of Chicago and Detroit, two major cities on the shores of the Great Lakes that would definitely put up a fight. Further cities include Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, and Buffalo. And that doesn't even include Canadian cities that are along the shores of the Great Lakes.
On a philosophical level, I myself think that the Upper Midwest should not be responsible for the mismanagement of water in the Southwest and in California. And if forestry and land management is any indication, anybody who thinks that the Southwest and West Coast is more worthy to have the water of the Great Lakes than the people who live around the lakes, is delusional and out of their minds. I can honestly and forthrightly say that it is not the responsibility of the people around the Great Lakes to take care of the people in the Southwest, when those people never assisted in helping the residents of Flint.
Firstly, the Great Lakes are a shared water resource of Canada and the US. The US can't unilaterally siphon water from it because it's not theirs to take. Secondly, bulk water exports from the Great Lakes (and Canada) are illegal ....and for good reason. Thirdly, the US southwest doesn't get to destroy the eco-system of another region or country to replenish its own.
even if the main water usage in the southwest (done with water FROM the southwest) is to grow produce sold to people in the midwest? the argument of permanent water removal seems to hold less weight when you think about that fact.
@@karlcx no it doesn't. We now realize what causes ecological disasters and this would be one in the making. Once damaged an ecology is lost and that is forever. To continue to grow crops in the southwest, people might all have to leave in order to save what water is there for the crops. But I guess no one has thought of that solution....it's all drain this, desalinate that....
@@AStri-zg5xc sorry, you don’t get a say since the southwest is clearly on their own.
@@AStri-zg5xc You should stop eating if you so believe in your comment, or else you're a hypocrite. Karl Lehtonen has you cold.
@@dmannevada5981 move the agriculture east to where the water is. The Great lakes Mississippi River basin and the southeast can grow those crops. Leave a few farms out west that won't use as much water.
Why are they growing cotton and oranges in Arizona when you can do that in Florida?
My mother is geologist and has specialized in ground water. She is a firm believer that the water in the Great Lakes was a one time gift from receding glaciers during the last ice age in North America. We should be very careful when considering how to manage this incredible gift.
I personally think they represent yet another reason why the region will see a population increase in the future.
Our cold winter Is the only reason this I about the West Not the east
The Great Lakes dried up into a chain of dead seas connected by a river 7,000 years ago and scuba diving archeologists have found caribou traps in areas that are now covered by over 100 feet of water. 15,000 years ago northern Utah was covered by a lake larger than Lake Michigan and you can still see the ancient shoreline on the Wasatch Mountains surrounding Salt Lake City and the airport and city would have been covered by around a thousand feet of water.
Especially with rising temperatures, it may even a comfortable place to live in 50 years during winter.
@@bobsmith6079 ummm more like 150 million years
yep, and when people move in, housing prices go UP ansd traffic congestion goezs UP.
ask all the cities where large numbers of people moved there.
Two years ago a company in Iowa wanted to ship 2 billion gallons of water a year from the Jordan Aquifer out to western states. It was met with incredible resistance and it came to nothing. The backlash to this proposal is only and indicator of how large the backlash would be to building a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the SouthWest.
Yeah you're right
Is that part of the Ogallala aquifer?
As it should. Manage the water you have don't just keep managing it poorly and take from other regions.
we don't own half of the lakes. canada better watch out cause we will be at war with them over water one day before we know it. and there will still be all the people fleeing that area which we NEVER should have tried to inhabit
That company obviously didn't consult with the Iowa state government, but saw it as a get rich gimmick.
Even if it was feasible to send water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest, I don't think it would ever be enough. You have people down there who waste literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on superfluous things like watering lawns, golf courses, and growing crops that extremely water intensive; all despite the water shortage as it is. If you suddenly give them access to millions of gallons of Great Lakes water, they're just going to waste it too.
Indeed. There's nothing essential about grass or trees for the sport of golf, any more than tennis or baseball. It's a rank and unsustainable display of status.
Farmers in the Great Lakes states, too, should be incentivized to grow almonds on their own land. People here eat almond croissants too. In the last 8 years we have had more than enough rain for it. (The level of Lake Michigan was very high at Christmas 2019 ... Wisconsin's east-shore beaches all but disappeared)
I drove through Utah recently and my jaw dropped. Was 100 degrees outside and driving through the desert there were green fields with water spewing all over them in the afternoon at the hottest part of the day. I farmed for quite a few years and watering during the day was a big no-no. Couldn't tell if they were being negligent or ignorant but I can tell you alot of that water is being wasted atleast in the area I drove through.
I live in Michigan. If the rain doesn't water the grass, I don't care if it is green. We respect the water. There was a recent chemical spill and the people are already calling for the heads of the company. You don't waste water, you don't mess with the water, and you don't abuse it.
They don't respect nature. They will get what they deserve. (Dust)
Agribusiness. They only care about the bottom line.
Piping water to a desert is insane to me, it's best to just move out.
To make it even worse, they're growing and irrigating alfalfa fields mostly. Ridiculous.
Speaking as a Canadian on the great lakes I feel the mood it pretty much the same on both sides of the boarder in this region... Never going to happen.
good video though. you explained it well
I agree, I would never want to see water transferred from the Great Lakes to the S.W. But, I think the S.W. should start banning the "soft" Ag it produces to feed Canadians & people around the Great Lakes at the same time.
Yep I live in Wisconsin and feel precisely the same way. When I first heard about this proposal I was quite incensed by it.
@@kidkanji5295 True
The US largest Iron ore supply come from Wisconsin by ship. You can't supply ore to Gary Works, in Gary, Indiana, on the shore of Lake Michigan by truck or train.
Its the largest steel mill in North America.
Plus GL shipping goes to the Atlantic east coast.
South west mess to have farms and large cities in a desert.
@@dmannevada5981 you do realize all the states around the Great Lakes can grow food also I know plenty of farmers around here that grow what California doesn't simply because it's more profitable if Cali banned those imports theirs enough farmers to pick up the slack. Also the water is cheaper for them so ya go ahead and try that. You get outside any major city in Ohio for example it's farm land as far the eye can see.
@@LavitosExodius Every freak"n person from that region says the same thing. How many times do I have to comment that the midwest can't grow most soft Ag after Sept and before June...it can't be done!!!!!! Hello!!!! Good God, do you pay attention????
Only the growing districts of the Colorado has the climate to grow soft Ag year round, with it's most productive time being Oct-Apr, when the midwest is shut down producing soft Ag. It's also why over 90% of America's fruits & veggies are produced Oct-Apr along the Colorado.
Do you get it!
Enough already, you don't know anything about horticulture, or the reasons why, how or when Ag can be produced in America.
Good grief.
Geoff, sending Great Lakes water anywhere is a non-starter. We who live in the Great Lakes region cherish the unique natural phenomenon that is the Great Lakes. Diverting water away from the region would only serve to compromise this natural ecosystem. As you have said, the Lakes are protected by international treaty with Canada and I, for one, cannot think of any plausible scenario that might serve to justify sending this water anywhere.
I agree with you 100 percent. Thankfully we have the Great Lakes Compact and Canada to ensure thieves can not destroy one of the great water sheds in the world. Never trust anyone that wants only a little bit of water, because it would be like letting the weasel in the hen house. Just look how they manage their own water assets. As for crops, Ohio has a bumper crop of corn this year, tomatoes, peppers, and fruit trees are full. I prefer to keep our water and grow our own crops. Want a war, try to build a GL pipeline and steal water.
What if you could not get food that has to be grown in the dessert southwest ? Would you rather buy it form south of the border where they are free to use pesticides that are banned in the USA ?
@@tedwalker1370 I would do what my Amish neighbors do, would do without rather than trade water for it. How about you can have all the water you want at $5 a gallon. How much you want?
@@tedwalker1370 That food should never have been grown in the desert. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples managed water responsibly in that region and even grew crops that could handle the extreme conditions. Now, all that is grown is vast monocultures of crops that require gross amounts of water to produce. The whole reason this drought is happening is because the region's water use is awful. The watershed has been ruined because of industrial farming, water waste, golf courses, suburban developments with lawns, etc. In California, they have managed to drain an entire lake for farming. I live on the Great Lakes, they are beautiful, and the American southwest will not drag our lakes down with them
@@tedwalker1370 We would stop exporting as much of the food we do grow. That being said, good luck on dealing with starvation.
Am I the only one seeing the big problem with ....
- a city in a desert,
- farms in a desert,
- golf courses in a desert,
-pools and green grass in a desert,
- pumping aquifers empty to support all the above experiments in human hydroponics?
As someone who lives about 3 miles from Lake Erie and previously lived about 150' from it: Any proposal like this is absolutely unacceptable. It's not just "ooh, it's pretty", it's our water supply, important to our economy, and enables our regional climate to function. We're also well aware that when municipalities started tapping the Colorado, everyone then said there was plenty of water and they'd never run out, and now look where they are.
If you want to partake of our water supply, move here so you're sending most of the water back into the lakes.
I live in Western NY, we generate a lot of truly clean electricity with that water as well…
Although I wouldn’t miss the lake effect snow much, lol
No hate but Waukesha already takes our water….
In your video you acknowledge the effects of climate change on the West Coast it is indeed getting more heat waves and hotter but if you take the time to look at the effects on the East Coast the atmosphere is holding more moisture and causing it to rain on eastern states longer and more frequently this is causing flooding to become more common on the East Coast So imagine this instead of trying to take water from the Great Lakes one source that is to say. we make a more elaborate system that is connected to various rivers and some lakes on the East Coast Then when it rains more frequently and starts to hit flooding conditions in that area a switch could be Flipped opening up a water pipeline to take the excess water to where it would be needed more thus stopping the Flood From happening and allowing the excess water to be transported to the western states I suppose this is more of a water pipe network then just a simple water pipeline I think it's the best long term solution the western states get the water they need and the eastern states that are being hit with more rain and flooding will no longer have increasing Flooding events. I would also like to make it clear that I do agree that Salt Lake City and the other cities and states in the western states need to manage their water better then what they currently do also I don't know why So many people think the only solution for a water pipeline would be the Great Lakes sure on the surface that seems like the most obvious solution because it's in plain sight but like you pointed out in the video it's not the best long term solution however this water pipeline network I mentioned earlier would be one of the best long term solutions if you think about it for a little bit and do some of the research on climate change not just affecting the West Coast but also the East Coast you'll see my point. / Also on a side note between 2030 and 2040 Florida is doomed as they are the state that will be damaged the most from rising sea levels.
The desert needs to suck it up and manage water better. "Moisture farming" is literally a thing, and it needs to be done! Agriculture needs to be reduced DRAMATICALLY here too! It's just not acceptable to be farming foods that have high water demands.
People rise to the level of expectations placed upon them in my opinion. As a California native who has lived in LA and San Diego for nearly 40 years, I am absolutely opposed to the idea of such a project. The citizens of the desert southwest need to accept the reality of our situation and regulate our use of water accordingly. This also includes industry and agriculture most emphatically! When I moved to San Diego 24 years ago the first thing I did was rip out the lawn and plant a cactus garden. For all these many years my bi-monthly water bills report that my property uses 75% less water than the average household in my zip code. To my mind this proves that the population of my area has a lot of room to improve on how they use water on their respective properties. And just so you all know, I even have a koi pond!
I'm pro-xeriscaping, too. My husband is obsessed with lawns 🙄. So we compromised when I showed him that reducing our lawn size with gravel/rock borders made the lawn easier to cut and keep up. It also reduced the amount of water required to irrigate the lawn. Wish I could get rid of the front lawn altogether and plant some dwarf trees and drought tolerant perennial flowers and bushes....😔
@@AStri-zg5xc American's obsession with lawns isn't going away anytime soon. Here in Michigan it's its own pandemic lol
As a hydrologist once stated with the BOR..."worrying about lawns is like your doctor worrying about your paper cut while having a gun shot wound to the chest". Watering lawns barely measure in the scheme of things and it wouldn't make one once of difference if every lawn was removed.
When the BOR's own data shows that over 80% of the water is used to irrigate crops, crops that contribute to the food supply of over 700 million people worldwide, then you get a sense of the true gravity of the issue. Removing your lawns saved on your water bill, it changed nothing as far as the dynamic of the Colorado's water issues.
@@AStri-zg5xc Did you listen to the stats? 74% of the water is used for ag. not lawns....so I guess we cut off that food supply?? Build the damned pipeline and build it now and stop carping about grass and cutting back.
This video is wrong the best way to get water to southwest is to reverse a river in Oklahoma to use it to build a shorter pipeline to southwest only pump water from the horrible seasonal floods on the Mississippi that way no one is losing any water because it flood water that would flood st Louis Memphis and New Orleans u people out west got to get out of fantasy land thinking ur water problem can be completely solved by using less water u can't save what u don't have u guys still need water coming in from somewhere else or hope the drought ends soon because I don't know if u guys in the west know the definition of drought but it means no rain so u can't save water if ur not getting any water
It could never be, Canada would never allow such a huge ecological disaster by draining the Great Lakes. Not gonna happen.
@Account NumberEight You should read the definition of draining
@Account NumberEight You just proved the only one being dramatic here is you.
As a Canadian our military is no match to the U.S. this water problem will become a national security issue . Which translates or means the wealthy will get Canadian water one way or another. Just a thought could population be a factor in this crisis.
@Account NumberEight nope. Look at the colorado river and tell me im dramatic.
And you stupidly answered your own question...Troll.
@@rickszabo4312 so just give it to the Americans because they have bigger guns?
I dont think so.
Theyll have to come and get me before ill let them damage an ecological system like the Great Lakes.
This was a very interesting video, I enjoyed it. I live in Michigan and have my entire life. I personally limit my water use because I know what a process it has to go through before it gets to me. But I am also aware that my location is unique to the rest of the world. I live in the area with the biggest fresh water supply in the world. On that one I consider myself blessed because it's never been of any real concern to me.
Relocating the water seems more of a problem, then relocating people. I'm not saying mass caravans of humanity, but there can be solutions on this. There are 8 states and 2 Provinces (Canadian) that sit in this region. There is a lot of good land and water here.
Consider yourself blessed, up until the masses migrate to your area 🤣
@@johndavis2938 Migrants can be stopped.. Those boys in Michigan wouldn't have a problem doing it either, completely different culture from the West.
Lots of people are "Napping out in the pines", lots.
Please complain to your municipality to stop dumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes. They all do it. Even in Canada, not as bad in Canada as America. But I'm constantly complaining in Canada for them to stop so we can really complain at the Americans and not be hypocrites
Not only is it a bad idea but the Great Lakes are a Regional Treasure. The amount of push back that you'd get back from the Midwest and Canada would be astronomical. The fact is the U.S. doesn't own the Great Lakes and the Southwest certainly doesn't.
I never understood why the pipeline needs to be from the Great Lakes you can just have regular pipelines from regular waters stations hell connect all the aquifers and water sources in the country by pipeline
@@Benjamin_Gilbert-Lif We could also stop building cities in deserts and planting crops in regions they have no business being planted in. We don't need every type of produce available year round. Sooner or later we're going to need to start working with nature instead of thinking we control it.
It is super expensive to pump/and or desalinate water. Our electrical grid has enough strain and cost. Using simpler local, decentralized water solutions such as rainwater harvesting earthworks as in the country. There are a ton of clever ways to do it. Acquaint yourself with Brad Lancaster's work, he a great speaker and he he has recently updated his two books to include a lot more info. 1930s, CCC-built bioswales in the Sonoran Desert are still going strong and will last hundreds of years more. They've raised the water table a lot, and are filled with life.
Use curb-cuts and bioswales in cities and it impacts honeowners' wallets in much happy ways. You have the one time cost of install, and much of the work could even be done by hand. You can then plant site and region appropriate *trees* for a food sources. These bioswales and the trees planted therein can also cool street pavement degradation; and cool the 'heat island effect;' reduce storm drain expansion needs; etc.
They may have the side egfect of displacing homeless camps...
It will never happen. Their are treaties against it. They overdeveloped in the desert from GREED not climate change. Idiots.
Well the amount of water required to fully fill both lake powell and lake mead to full capacity would be like taking a 30 oz glass of water out of a 50 gallon jug to the great lakes. Which by the way all just drain their water into the ocean and is basically wasted. Otherwise they can do things like have California cut off all the food they supply to the states that refuse to help. Which is about 30-40% of the fresh foods for most of the country. So you can start living off of corn, beef, chicken and wheat and forget about most of the produce you currently enjoy on a daily basis
Dear Southwest,
Get your own damn water. You are the ones that wanted to live in a desert. Leave our Great Lakes alone.
Signed, the Midwest.
Dear Midwest, Grow your own food. You're the ones that wanted to live in a forest. We'll do just fine growing food for ourselves.
@@jasons5916 The difference is that we BUY your food. You want to STEAL our water. We can always cut a little more forest if we need to produce food. Once you take water out of the Great Lakes Water Shed, it's functionally gone. Also, it is not like we can't start growing more food here if need be. What do you really need for that? Land and water? We have plenty of both.
@@JakePyre No one is piping water 1500 miles for free and even bottled water that comes from municipal sources has to pay for the water that is used. Piped water would cost the price of the water at the source or the rights plus what it costs to transport it.
@@jasons5916 We already get robbed for water rights to pump it out of the ground here. Nestle pumped millions of gallons of water out of Michigan and paid a whopping 200 dollars a year for the rights. No one in this region is looking to allow that to happen again. Besides, selling it at cost plus expenses to transport is such a bad price for the Great Lakes region, even if it was for sale. Especially since when it is pumped to another region, the water is nonrenewable.
@@jasons5916 Midwest grows plenty of our own food. Don't need yours. Fly over any state between the rockies & appalachians and north of Texas. Farms beyond count, where Nature has provided the conditions for farming without needing to pipe water for thousands of miles.
First time I've heard of anyone proposing taking water from the great lakes to the southwest. The active proposals are to bring water from the Mississippi River, which is a shorter distance and involves fewer geographical barriers.
Nevertheless, the evident solution to the water situation in the southwest is, first, to recognize that the desert is not a good place to be growing most crops. Second, the really large source of water is the ocean; nuclear-powered desalination ought to be investigated. But that requires us to discard our prejudices against nuclear power generation.
Accaully desalination is the answer.
But California refuses to do this.
Yet they steal the water from the Colorado.
I say pull it from the Gulf and pipe it right next to the Rio Grange.
This way there is less height to move it up. ( only about 4000 feet)
Tap El Paso into it as well with a clause.
That they are to stop taking water from surrounding areas.
From El Paso go next to I-10 to Phoenix.
Then north to Flagstaff then to Winnemucca.
And DONT LET CALIFORNIA have any of it.
This will give water to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Neveda.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in water management. But some areas have lost water to other areas.
Its not the areas that lost waters fault. It the pigs in areas like El Paso. That stole it.
50 years and the water table dropped 200 feet due to EL Paso.
That is water in the 1950 was at 300 feet down. Now it over 500 feet to water.
And it's not coming back, because they drained it, and keep draining, a basin.
Oh and that not global warming. Its too many people in an area.
And there are many other desalination system than nuclear.
But I'm not opposed to nuclear also being used.
It involves fewer political barriers as well, like Canada saying no way. But the real barrier is the Rockies
Dude one sudden irreversible climate change is what is happening. Just look around you. What will that mean? Abrupt collapse of civilization absofucinlutely could be, lol! So worse case scenario, imagine 90% of people gone, don’t care what “you” think the possibility of that happening is. I care about those 10% that are workin their butts off to survive in that strange new world the fossil fuels industry gave us! Just when they think they might make it your world kicksemintheass with a near by not decommissioned nuke plant melting down! Think of the difference in Nagasaki and Chernobyl the latter still being a wasteland, where as Nagasaki being rebuilt a few years later! Melt downs very, very bad and every plant that is not properly decommissioned will melt down! So no, fuck no not even if the odds are a thousand to one, sudden irreversible climate change moves exponentially faster now that 400ppm CO2 was breached! Yes we are talking millions of years ago when it naturally happened shit hit the fan fast even though back then took hundreds of thousands of years for CO2 to go from 200ppm to 400ppm once it reached that it became unbearable real fast, just another degree or two and those without air conditioning will soon not have the energy necessary to sweat. Unfortunately when you stop sweating you die! Funny how few deaths it takes to collapse civilization! It’s an exponential domino effect which is what makes the climate deniers so absofuckinlutly dangerously insane! Unless you don’t mind the demise of the human race! And no anyone waiting for the rapture shouldn’t even be allowed to make any long term decisions about theirselves!
@@TheLosamatic 90% of the population gone would be a good thing.
And there is no change in climate.
Thats a hoax.
I don't know. Maybe you are just believing lies those hippies are telling, because you are young.
But climate change is a hoax.
What is real is an explosion of population in areas that can't take it.
Two things you didn't mention regarding Great Lakes water, first, the water level of the Great Lakes rises and falls with the weather. In drought conditions it goes down and in wet times fills up by as much as six feet of difference. There are about 140 commercial ports on the Great Lakes. That is a lot of shipping and a lot of jobs that depend on lake level. Once people outside the Great Lakes Basin start drawing on the water and relying on it, how do you turn off their tap when the lake levels naturally go down? The lakes have gone down about 25 inches since 2020 naturally without any such pipeline as that proposed. Would people accept someone saying, "sorry, you'll just have to wait a few years for the lakes to come back up." Once the tap is open it will be very hard to shut it off. If the natural waterway goes too low, and the ports can't work, what do the people in the Great Lakes region do to ship and receive goods that now go through the ports? I understand the people in the Southwest have jobs and lives and needs, but so do the people in the Great Lakes region. Nothing is gained by sacrificing one for the other.
Second, The American Southwest is a historic drought area on our planet. You can't fix that. To ship water from other parts of the country will only make it possible for more people to live there and increase the demand on scarce resources and the need to move yet more water. If you did use Great Lakes water to try and fix that problem you would only make the demand on Great Lakes water that much worse. The Southwest region must live on their available resources and people should not continue to move to an area where the land doesn't have the carrying capacity. There are other places in the country available for people to move without the cost and environmental damage posed by such a pipeline.
All facts.
People in California, Arizona and all the other states that suck the Colorado River dry don't care about anyone else. They deserve that water.
As someone who grew up near Lake Michigan and still currently living 5 minutes from the lake, there is no way in hell we are willing to divert any of our Great Lakes water to the western US. 😅
Hence the pact to protect the Great Lakes. We need to preserve them. Plus they are vital shipping routes as well for large ships and such.
The states that surround the Great Lakes are the only states that get to use them for drinking water. And even then we limit it to towns and cities that are within the Great Lakes water shed area. So basically any town more than 50 miles from the lakes are out of luck for the most part.
My town has Lake Michigan water as it's main source. Just like Chicago does. But my town is right on the lake shore. 🙂
I love to see all the laker folks so proud and defensive over our lakes
Where do you think a lot of food you "midwesterners" eat comes from? Central Valley, California grows plenty of food that is transported east and all over the world. It's not your water but the planet's water and can be used however it wants to by the planet and its inhabitants. We're all on this rock (boat) together...
@@eep-squared bel8ve or not most stores here will buy from locals long befor sourcing from Cali. We grow far superior foods on quality not quantity. We will starve long befor we come off the waters that feed us here personally. Your best bet is stop thinking money is the solution. We don't want your money for water. We'd keep the water and we are in the world's best fruit belt, it may be seasonal but it's why we canned in the fall growing up we learned to endure the winters cause it produces some of the best tasting food I'll ever eat. Besides why don't y'all come an learn whe we are the great lakes states and why we won't let you have it. Our natural wonder is exactly that ours as in the collective people that live around it and will be damnded if we let it go to some desert to dry up. We won't starve cause you don't get water. we will use our own ability to sustain our way of life. We were farmers long befor you had a State or a town. We didn't move to the desert nor our we saying you can't come here. Just the water isn't flowing your way anytime soon. As for the Mississippi good luck they get a lot more hostile over there river and it only get worse the more you push an pry at them
@@MrDepodot7 sorry for your loss but Great Lakes water isn't for sale
@@MrDepodot7 Those States literally have like 5 people that live in them though. LOL! 🤣 We have 34 million people around the Great Lakes. (55 million for the megapolis) Hence we are the largest bidder. 😉
California, being on the coast, should stop taking water and electricity from Colorado River and begin installing more desalination plants. The other states that have no ocean from which to get purified water from, should be the only ones getting water for themselves via the Colorado River and downstream lakes.
Yeah the worst run state in the country. Westerner here, dont support, southern parts and states are vastly less important than the few trees we have left. That water aint going north of sac and sf its not helping. You think you can allow all the people in to use up resources when in the end you contaminate all of it from the top down. Besides, people are moving from the great lakes because they are ruined already.
That's actually a good solution for California However the majority of the salt that is removed from the ocean water cannot simply be dumped back into the ocean We might be able to make use of some of the salt by using it to help preserve meats and stuff Put it on some French fries sea salt style But in the end we would have to store up the excess salt in containers and store them in warehouses Anyway if you used in the Right way taking water from the ocean for drinking and farming is a good idea
@@DavidJohnson-pu2jh maybe they could load it in cargo ships, and spread it out all over the ocean, so it is not just in one location.
@@MrUtubeobia There are some documentaries on separating ocean water from its salt You should check those out and do some research on how the process works Then you'll understand better But the gist of it is this if we Take the water And put all the salt back in the ocean Gradually overtime we will increase the ocean salt content Since the salt will Concentrate more to the bottom of the ocean this will affect coral reefs and fish As well as other types of sea creatures Back in 2019 there was an article in Scientific American About it. Using your idea we might be able to put a little bit of the salt back into the ocean but not as much as we would be taking out Like I said it makes more sense if you do the research. / Speaking of another good documentary to check out is the one about Arctic sinkholes And how they are helping speed up climate change If you look into them further Then just the documentary you see they are a part of what many scientists are concerned about When it comes to environmental feedback loops .
@@DavidJohnson-pu2jh , I have seen some articles on desalination. But, what gets me, is that the oceans loose purified water (moisture) all the time, and form clouds, and those clouds go over land, then rains and fill our rivers. So, when the oceans naturally loose moisture, does the ocean get saltier?
Sounds like the states surrounding the Great Lakes are very protective of their Lakes and rightfully so. I live in the Southwest and at least here in SoCal I’m glad we’re doing things here and there to combat water wastage and mismanagement. Glad to do my part, but it’s disheartening to hear people like Kim Kardashian use over 200,000 gallons in a month for her residence. Makes the efforts seem futile
Because liberals are afraid to take legal action against "celebreties."
As a person who lives in one of the states that touch the great lakes, I honestly wouldn't mind giving up some water to the south west. However, we all have to be better with water management, because climate change is only going to make things worse. For example:
* lawns simply need to go away - it's stunning that we still have areas where people water ground cover, when it doesn't produce food or really do much of anything, other than look pretty
* recycling of water. I know it won't happen because we're so divided, but I'd love for a new house construction mandate that says water from the shower and washing machine can no longer just be flushed away and instead has to be captured into a 200 gallon tank placed in the basement of the house. That water can then be recycled and used to flush toilets, etc.
I have a ton more ideas, but we really all need to start realizing that water is going to become more precious than gold within the next few years, so we have to start treating it as such now.
Edit: cleaned up to make sense
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 You're a generous soul. I'm not as kind-hearted lol I know if I was from there I'd protest giving any water to the southwest. Much more drastic measures definitely need to take place. And also with population growth in these areas, I mean Arizona is growing faster than the national average like wtf, it just doesn't feel sustainable. The Water Wars are coming!
The Great Lakes Compact says no. That's an international treaty, so.
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 as another person within the great lakes basin, I have a huge issue. THey've sucked the rio grande and the colorado dry. They'll do the same to the great lakes. The mississippi is already drying up. THey want to kill it completely. We can't let them abuse the great lakes, too. Nestle is already doing enough damage.
Some say oil pipelines can go thousands of miles, so why not water? Reason is that hydrocarbon products like gasoline sell for dollars per gallon -- while water sells for only fractions of a cent per gallon, one-thousandth the value for the same volume. It's not economical to transport that much that far without huge subsidies that obscure the true cost. Besides construction, there's pumping energy that will be most of the cost, it can't be all gravity flow. The southwest can recycle and reuse wastewater, capture rainwater & stormwater, use drip irrigation on crops, cover canals to prevent evaporation and line them to prevent percolation. All of that will deliver more water at less cost.
If you want Great Lakes water, move to the Great Lakes region!
I so agree. I also think if you want all the produce produced out west, you should move out west. Anyone eating any fruits & veggies during January should be ashamed of themselves.
@@dmannevada5981 Mucci Farms has set up several greenhouses throughout the Great Lakes region. Sucks when they can't get their light pollution curtains to stay up, but they're growing year-round in Ohio.
115 years ago: If you want Owens Valley water, move to the Owens Valley!
@@nowake Yes, I realize that. BUT...if I called that type of production a drop in the bucket in comparison, it would be a massive over statement. The growing districts of the Colorado are pushing 6 million acres just in the lower basin itself. Could you imagine a 6 million acre greenhouse. What the hell would that look like?
It would be significantly cheaper to build both a dedicated power plant and reverse osmosis system (like that in Antioch, Israel) to pull desalinize water from the Pacific Ocean.
A project like you describe was just cancelled by the state of California. The concern was that removing all the salt from the water, and then dumping it back in the Pacific would create a local area of high salinity, and kill a lot of fish/wildlife in the area. The project included a ling diffusion pipe to deep water, to prevent this from becoming a major concern, however, the California Environmental assessment said it wouldn't be enough.
There are many people and businesses who depend on near shore fisheries to make a living, so this isn't an easy fix, but with the ongoing drought, I think cancelling that project may have been a mistake.
@@bskec2177 It isn't just the higher salinity of the effluent from the plant, it is the higher temperature of it as well.
Though if they kept the concentrated salt water, let it dry out to salt and sold the sea salt then both issues would be completely mitigated.
That plant in Israel processes 640,000 cu. meters of water per day...while that is a LOT of water in terms of domestic needs (170 million gallons) it is a spit in the ocean in terms of agriculture (500 acre-feet/day).
For perspective, the Central Valley Water System (i.e. not including So Cal) handles 40 million acre-feet per year.
All of the world's desalination plants together (Saudi has the most I think) are not even close to enough to replace California's demands on the Colorado River. Good first step maybe.
@@gorkyd7912 There isn't going to be a single solution to a problem this big, it's going to need a series of small steps.
This has been proposed for many years, and the states/provinces bordering the Great Lakes collectively say "Hell NO!". You want water? Move here where the water is.
They don't want that either. They tell Californians to stay the hell away
That’s what I say. But I also say stay the hell away we got enough people here, lol.
@@bultacowally you’re right.
I'm from Los Angeles and that is a terrible idea ecologically, economically, politically, and socially. Much of the water issues in these states can be resolved just by improving the water irrigation, purification, and storage practices. That oil pipeline is a disaster waiting to happen. The aqueduct may only be transporting water, but its not worth the investment.
Solution: Tell people to stop trying to live and farm where there isn't enough water to sustain them. It was once a fundamental principle that we settled where water was in abundance. Why? Because it's one of the three things necessary for survival; air, food, and water.
If you want to try to live and grow food where there isn't enough water, that's your business. I'll be sure to sign you up as a contestant for the next Darwin Award.
Okay so we should better cut the rainforest then and invade the last lush areas on the planet? I ht your grandstanding
Well if we are to believe geology. At one time there was a lake in Utah that was bigger than Lake Michigan& Lake Huron combined. I guess the climate changed.
@@mistersir3020 If that's what you think it takes to live in inhabitable areas, I'm glad you're a nobody on the internet with no real power.
@@warrenpuckett4203 And most of California, Nevada, Arizona, etc has been a terrible place to live the whole time. But sure, your lake comment was a real "gotcha." Take a bow.
@@warrenpuckett4203 Was that when Ford opened his first factory?
Utah is considering piping in sea water from the Pacific Ocean to refill the Great Salt Lake. Arid-zona is much closer to the sea than Utah is. It seems like they could spend some time thinking about a desalination project. They could even power it via solar.
Probably should've done that 20 years ago
The economics of such a plan are completely untenable. The elevation changes in getting the water over the Sierras alone would prohibit such a project. Oh and don't forget the energy for the desalination of that water. The total energy consumption would be gigantic.The math for such a project simply does not work. Solar energy is great but it's just not going to be nearly enough.
The math for LA aqueduct works only because it is powered entirely by gravity and the water is already fresh. Not only that but due to the geography of the Central Valley, there was no significant tunneling required so it was relatively cheap to build (considering the distances involved)
@@russellthorburn9297 augment it with wind farms then. Wind much more effective. Bore a tunnel through the sierras and use that instead of a pipeline.
I don't get why they don't use the 450 nuclear power plants America has to desalination water. I guess that'd be too smart to capture all the water evaporated out the cooling towers
@@highstreetkillers4377 I do. Because we only have 92 nuclear reactors in operation, not 450, and the vast majority of them are east of the Mississippi, making them effectively useless for such a project.
Or crazy thought
Stop using water for high intensity crops like Rice and Almonds in a desert.
This is what happens when you live in a place where that many people were never supposed to live. The desert southwest is called a desert for a reason
Would like to see an video on a pipeline from the Pacific Ocean to the southwest states using desalination.
Desalination seems like a good idea to solve the water problems in California, but I'm curious why I don't hear about it as a solution?
I came up with that solution as well. It's crazy they ain't thinking about it. The water goes, and it goes back out. Endless recycling period.
Instead pump north from the gulf of California. Let the sun evaporate from an inland salt water lake. It would take about 25% of Arizona.
@@jessicag123 It isn't the cheapest source of water because of the energy needs. It is energy dependent and the oil and gas companies don't want people to realize that solar energy could fix the issue and replace them at the same time.
Desalination makes more sense.
Does anyone remember back in the late 80's when the Mississippi was so dry that you could almost walk across it? Barges were stuck in the mud everywhere. Don't send water to the southwest from the Mississippi.
Did they have ebb flow lochs in place then? There are dams in place now keeping water tables relatively steady.
Westerner here, dont support, southern parts and states are vastly less important than the few trees we have left. That water aint going north of sac and sf its not helping. You think you can allow all the people in to use up resources when in the end you contaminate all of it from the top down. Besides, people are moving from the great lakes because they are ruined already.
I also remember 2012 where the Mississippi River was so low that our barges couldn't move our garbage from a couple of months.
@@smokencracker5597 You're crazy or on drugs...I take it you have never been near any of the Great Lakes. I live in upstate NY and have seen some areas around the Great lakes and the ones I have seen are pristine...even nicer on the Canadian side. Ain't nobody moving away from them that's for sure...especially now.
@@MCPorter83 Yeah, and in 2011 there was so much water the COE had to blow the Birds Point Levee to prevent massive flooding disasters in the Ohio River leg of the watershed. There's plenty of extra water in that system, over time, there's just not sufficient storage capacity to best manage it.
@@MrDepodot7
“Preacher man says it’s the end of time
And the Mississippi River she’s goin’ dry”
The other verse you speak of is
“How I’d love to spit some Beechnut in that dudes’ eye
And shoot him with my ol’45
Cause a Country Boy can survive”
We’ll keep our water right here, thank you very much.
Tell that to Nestle!
I learned recently that there are a few desalination plants in California. Maybe having more of them over time could be more feasible if the technology advances. Even so, it will probably take a lot of different solutions to work with the water crises that's in the Southwest and through much of the rest of the country if not much of the world.
Those plants & upkeep cost more than the pipeline.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing California go into crisis mode about water. Maybe they would finally do some rethinking about how/where they should be spending their $400 billion/year budget. Desalination plants instead of wind farms…. i.e. - water to drink vs forcing electric cars down people’s throats.
@@TheMrPeteChannel So what, that's the price you pay living in a Desert with extreme over population. That area was self sustaining with water and agriculture until the 1990's only because of industrial technology developed in the last century. Those areas have been minimally populated because of the lack of resources throughout history. Thats why populations have always lived in areas where food and water were able to sustain them. .
If we had Free Energy, then we could have as much desalination as we want; we could turn the Sahara (and the US southwest) into a garden. And Free Energy actually does exist, but somebody benefits too much from all of us having to pay them for oil, gas, and electricity, noamsayin'?
In January 1972, I went to Tucson, AZ for the first time. At that time, it had 55,000 people. NW of town was a fenced off area, with keep out and danger warnings hanging on a chain link fence, around maybe 160 acres. I asked someone about that, I was told the Aguifer had been pumped out and the ground was collapsing. Humm. 1972. And people had green grass lawns.
I did see one thing that impressed me. A new housing development went up and as I drove through it. One house had a front yard that had a couple of catus in it but the rest was two inches of pea gravel. And a worker was spraying the pea gravel with a green dye. Wow. The perfect yard. No maintenance. Water use? None. Except for maybe, an eight ounce glass of water for each catus. Once a year. If you feel like it. Otherwise? Hey, you were good to go. Northerners go to the desert, plant all kinds of stuff they have in the north, water a grass front yard and now wonder, ‘how can we be out of water’. And throughout history, we know the SW USA has had multiple 50 to 80 year droughts. This is only year 22 of a drought.
You want to live in the desert? You build desalination plants. They talked about that back in the early 1960’s. And did nothing about it. Now, of course, they’ll want the rest of us to pay for those plants. To which I respectfully reply, “F U”!
San Diego has a desalination plant that provides 5% of San Diego's water. Tucson population in 1980 was 240,000 and now it's 550,000
You’d be happy to see that all the new development does NOT allow grass lawns. Water is so expensive now that only the wealthiest would consider having a real lawn, anyway. I see a lot of it in Phoenix, though, but not so much Tucson. They also don’t allow street lights in newer developments and only special dimmer household outdoor lights.
@@RobertGolden1952Tucson is in pima county and has over 1 million people
@@RobertGolden1952 San Diego's building another one, so Im good til 2045.
Many solutions to drought are available to us. Israel makes use of desalination on a large scale. They also have developed irrigation techniques which are miserly with water yet grow an astounding amount of crops.
No. That’s ridiculous. Phoenix and Vegas don’t need lawns. This is getting ridiculous with these desert states 🙄
Why does anyone need lawns at all anywhere?
@@SS-yj2le Here in chicago they don't require watering
@@SS-yj2le Some people have dogs and kids that appreciate them. The lawns also help keep the houses cool in the summer resulting in less need for AC and ultimately less strain on the electric grid which always seems to be insufficient. The bees and other insects love them as well. They're good for the air quality too. Even with all that, I agree that the desert cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas etc shouldn't have lawns. At the minimum they should get rid of the non-functional grass.
@@cavemancaveman9746 Phoenix and Las Vegas are definitely desert cities, but I cannot agree with calling Los Angeles that. They not only get nearly double the rain Phoenix receives and nearly 4 times that of Vegas, but the coast also gets intense marine layer influence. Parts of the coast there rarely ever even get into the 90s. Farther down the coast as well, the marine influence is enough for the southern most coastal naturally growing Torrey pines to actually exist and the winter rain months are very sporadic with some amounts being quite a bit. Los Angeles would be more similar to parts of coastal North Africa and Southern Europe. In fact, Europe is getting hit extremely hard right now by the same drought as well with the Po River threatening to dry up the same way as the Colorado. For lawns, you do realize places east can and have wasted water too right? Why not use those types of services the lawn does elsewhere? In Los Angeles, the coastal areas definitely wouldn't need much of anything like that. Though further inland, there definitely should be something as that is intense heat that reaches into the 100s every year. Plants like Saxual trees would be of huge benefit and they are extremely drought resistant and hold multiple advantages like also having shade unlike grass. In other places too. Much of that water can be diverted for other plants that can be more practical.
@@jpmeyer09 You can have other uses of that space. Also, a lot of lawns just in SoCal don't need much watering. Especially as much of our own grass is adapted to the environment here.
As a Canadian, living in the midst of the Great Lakes, "Hell No!"
you don't get a vote . as usual. hehehe
Thanks for not sharing neighbor
The Great Lakes states and provinces are home to over 100 million people who will join you in that "Hell no!" Cameron. I'm a native Michigander living in PHX, and most people HERE would consider the idea ridiculous!
We do a LOT to conserve and recycle our limited water in AZ, more than any other state, and we're proud of that. If NEED be, we could limit our profitable farming, and we DID a bit of that recently in Pinal County.
A recent USA Today (it still spews garbage) editorial tried to frame SW drought as a "national problem", requiring such a canal. But it's no more a national problem than Rust Belt decline was in the 1980s and 1990s, when TX, AZ, NV, CO and CA enjoyed our migration westward.
Question: instead of tapping into an existing lake, why not setup pipelines from flood zones? in other words: setup pipes to divert flood water from one area to a "dry" or drought area - that way, you address two problems at the same time.
As someone who lives on the great lakes, I must vote no. Stop farming in the desert.
I have a very simple analogy for this idea of a pipline/aqueduct from the midlands to the West and why it's a very, very bad idea.
Scenario: You are a family of 4 living on $62K/year. You get a 2% raise every year and you save about 5% of your combined income. You don't have enough for a big house because of where you live so you rent. You have one car and the others use public transportation. You live in an area with rent that isn't the highest, but is pretty steep. You have about $250/month left over after all expenses and savings. All in all, you're doing pretty well. Now the government has decided to up the sales tax in your county by 1%, rent goes up by 5%/year and you're having trouble with your car which needs repairs. So now you're having to use credit to get by. You stop or lower your 5% savings just to make ends meet and now have nothing left at the end of the month.
Actions: You get a new job or win the lottery to the point of $30K/year more than before. So now you're earning $92K/year. You move to that house you've been wanting now that you can afford it, you buy a new car and junk the older one, reinstate your 5% savings and basically start buying/living up to your new income. What you do NOT do is get the new job and pocket that extra $30K/year.
Situation: This is the same as the West living up to/past their water supply, only to be supplied now with more water.
Summary: It's human nature that people will say - we now have plenty of water. Water restrictions are abandoned, people don't conserve, water is freely given where it shouldn't be, more people move in now that they know water is no longer an issue.
Outcome: In only a few decades, you will be back to square one only this time, you'll have nowhere to draw more water from. This is essentially being bailed out, not addressing the real problem, putting a band-aid over it and kicking it down the road. Disaster looms at the end of that dead-end road. It's not if but when. Meanwhile the river(s) from where this water was taken now suffer with lower flush rates, sediment build-up, stagnating water in some places leading to diseases, possible water restrictions for them, etc. It's just a massive dumpster fire waiting to happen.
I don't have the answer, but I know stealing water from the center of the country to feed the deserts of the West isn't it.
Spot on
brilliant
Yes. No area should use more water than its property receives in rain. Same for oil, iron, and every other resource.
Either that or your ideas are unsupportable.
@@richardtheweaver4891 what are the dimensions of an area
I know Israel uses desalination plants, and this has worked. Expensive? Yes but building a pipeline across the nation would also be expensive
I'm in Windsor Ontario and surrounded by the great lakes. I would be very unhappy if the lakes were being drained to pump to the US southwest. Desalination plants may be expensive, but cheaper than draining the lakes and who knows maybe drawing salt water and converting it to fresh water could help with rising sea levels as well.
I imagine that there is a surpuls that drains out of the lakes. Perhaps that could be allowed to be exported rather than wasted by going into the Atlantic. If a committee made up of the states around the lakes had to sign off on the volume exported each year, it could serve to maintain the environment and add an income to the Lakes area
We'd be pretty pissed off here in Michigan too lol
Don’t worry.. every surrounding Great Lake state and you guys up there would never ever allow this to happen.. I would goto war for it.
won't happen because there are strict international laws on who can draw water from the Great Lakes. If you aren't in the Basin you cannot draw water. I'm in Windsor too and we can use as much as we want because it eventually goes back into the lake. Sad thing is every city dumps raw sewage into them. I been complaining for Canada to stop so we can really complain at the bigger culprit (America) to stop. Just go to Point Pelee National Park in spring before they rake the beaches. It's covered in 1000's of tampon applicators
@essex Farmer it takes the water 250 years to travel through the Great Lakes. And all that water has to go into the Atlantic Ocean. It is transporting the nutrients to the Grand banks that is an extremely rich fish habitat. Draw off the water and billions of marine life will die
As a Michigan resident, a pipeline will Never be built to supply the America southwest.!!
As a Minnesotan, I'm going to mention the fact that superior has had it's draughts. It has been dangerously low to the point of stopping shipping from so low water the docks were at risk. (It was a few years ago)
Also, since the pipeline was hundreds of billions by OP's projections, just build desalination plants. It costs are not the issue, but results... Pour money into solutions that could work and would have far less negative impact on others.
@@JBMuffinman187 Amen!
I’m from Michigan. Don’t sell water to these Fucks! Stand together !
The Great Lakes states also stand to benefit if the southwest becomes uninhabitable. Major cities like Cleveland and Detroit have 2/3ds as many residents as they have housing for. As we approach midcentury, the Great Lakes can expect a return of migrants in search of cheap water, low cost of living, and milder summers than they can get in the sunbelt.
@@MrDepodot7 Just Leave your blue politics in so Cali.
Senator Paul Simon of Illinois spoke of this in the late 1980’s. Overpopulation, overuse of water for expanding ag and cheaper water in a desert than the Midwest with just one drought away from a crisis. Amazing how he predicted this very scenario.
Paul Simon was a good Senator. He gave me my Service Academy nomination.
You know that higher CO2 in the air reduces the water needs of plants.
It's not amazing. My Dad was a hydrologist/geologist in New Mexico. I remember conferences in the late sixties where it was the main topic of discussion.
The Colorado River Compact addressed this fear in 1922. It was common long before that.
What's sad is people in the Southwest trying to resolve their water problems by trying to destroy the ecology of my region of the continent.
It would probably be cheaper and more reliable to build a nuclear desalination plant even if it was built in Mexico.
Oil companies wanted to build a pipeline from Alberta, Canada to The Gulf of fMexico. I am sure some states will want a WATER SPILL on their land.
Which would bring tremendous benefits to both economies. But government axed the idea.
If this plan was ever conceived I would personally sabotage any actions taken to complete the project xD
good
LOL
This would make the Dakota Access Pipeline protests look like a family get together in comparison.
@@5daysofcoffee explain this to me…… piping water across the country seems really different than shipping oil across the country
@@99guspuppet8 a few things.
1. The vast majority of Canada’s population lives on the Great Lakes. You’d have to break the compact with them and steal water for this to work. It would cause a complete diplomatic break down between the US and Canada.
2. The Dakota access pipe line went through three of the ruralest states in the US and was mainly protested by Indian tribes that unfortunately are some of the poorest and least politically powerful people in the US.
3. Everyone in these states across party lines agree that diverting water from the Great Lake is a bad idea. These states are home to 80 million people and that’s just the US side. You’d be a fool to think that you could get away with this without 100 million people protesting across Canada and the US.
Some thoughts, living in MI, I know that we would never give up our water, period. The problem in the SW is directly related to the population and their consumption. Although I don't recall that you mentioned it, the Great Salt Lake has similar problems and it does not require fresh water to fix, i.e. it could use the salt water that is geographically closer to it. I could see a salt water pipeline being feasible (although probably not financially possible) and inland desalination plants powered by solar energy, which would be practical but expensive.
Same here if this were to ever happen I will find a way to blow it up. I would never let Westerners especially Californians take the water out of our Great Lakes and waste it like they do. They make me sick already. Most of them make me sick obviously there’s a small number of great people that aren’t idiots out there
They could desalinate water with the 450 nuclear power plants in America. Billions of gallons a day go out the cooling towers as water vapour. But I guess that's being too smart to do
@@highstreetkillers4377 There are only 92 operating reactors, not 450.
I think the little pacific project is a great idea. At the end you put in a thorium reactor which can desalinate the water. You get fresh water, sent to lake mead, and power as the end result.
You do know that desalinate the ocean water requires a lot of power and it's very expensive. It goes against Global Warming. Where we are trying to cut consumption of power the desalinate plant would reverse this.
@@waynerice4918 Nuclear power is dirt cheap. Also the water you get in return is worth money.
@@mistersir3020 nuclear power has never been cheap. Hyped cheap in fact they said it would be so cheap it wouldn’t register on meters, that certainly did not work out. Every plant they built had billion dollar cost over runs! Just more BS from a troll!
@@TheLosamatic Every project overruns its budget. And you mostly have to pay distribution.
No point in sending desalination water to Lake Mead. Use the water locally to offset consumption from the lake, so there's less removed from Lake Mead. Not to criticize too harshly--lots of people make this mistake--but failing to notice that your suggestion moves water hundreds of miles at great expense only to turn around and move it back to near where it started does suggest not having thought the process through in depth.
I would like to add that the Chinese south north water transfer project has been a disaster with bad ecological results. China had put the project on pause and still hasn’t restarted it, which says something. We should not make the same mistake here. The cost to people and economics is far too high.
Official Chinese government announcement : July 2022 : New follow-up project for China's south-to-north water diversion begins construction.
So I don't know where you get the information that the project is "on hold"???? (Probably from one of the many anti China propaganda channels?)
Like in any major project there will be adjustments needed because of unforseen changed circumstances.
In fact there is already a thousand(s) year old canal from the South to the North build in imperial times for the transport of water and (food) resources from the South to the North.
I remember when desert communities were destroyed in order to funnel more water to L.A. At some point we need to realize that there are simply some parts of our country incapable of supporting large human populations. Setting up aqua ducts isn't the solution to the south wests water shortage. Not tat the expense of communities where water is plentiful.
Relocating idiots who decided living in a frigging desert was a good idea. Is a better option than tampering with the natural flow of water.
That never happened dude. Go back and read some history and stop watching old movies.
@@johnnynephrite6147 One of us needs to go back and look at history and it's not me. You can start by researching Owens lake.
@@jamess3532 a few Indians lost a pond. big deal. No Owens Valley to LA aqueduct and No Los Angeles. Good luck with that. Go back and watch China Town.
@@johnnynephrite6147 I only gave you one example, I could have provided more but in all honesty, you're so uneducated and obtuse I would just be wasting my time. Going back to my original point which you unknowingly validated by your short sighted response; L.A. can't survive, just as other naturally dry communities can't survive unless they consume water from sources well outside county limits and those resources are drying up. Why? Simple: there are geographical areas all over the world where large cities and populations were never meant to exist. There isn't enough natural water in those regions to support them.
I saw an interesting proposal the other day, related to this. Rather than taking water from the great lakes though, they suggested taking water from flood prone areas prior to the storms(so instead of flooding the water is drained then refilled by the storm). They also suggested reusing oil/natural gas pipelines that are no longer used, which would greatly reduce the costs.
Good idea in theory, but once this pipeline would be built, it would only be a matter of time before it would be misused/overused. All it would take is a large chunk on money to be offered or a change in political power. As someone who lives in Wisconsin, I have ZERO trust that the west coast politicians wouldn’t try to bribe someone to pass some bill afterwords to give more water than we should to them, In order to get said politician some good press/publicity.
@@ScrawnyClownSnatch Well the floods actually cause a lot of damage and climate change is also making extreme flooding events more common(at the same time as more severe droughts). So moving water away is actually a large benefit to those people who would other wise be flooded.
Of course it is possible it could be abused, but also we all live in the same country, so we shouldn't be fighting over water if there are ways to provide for everyone.
We don't actually want to drain lakes, even large ones like the Great Lakes, since that isn't a permanent solution. However being able to move water around from place to place would be useful.
@@Lilitha11 If the main idea is to use it as a way to prevent flooding, there are cheaper ways to do that that don't require making a pipeline straight thru the country and the montans (like the video said, it expensive). There are also other solutions for the west to use to save water that are cheaper as well.
Ideally, this system would only be used on rare occasions where the great lakes area gets to much water. But the truth is, that would not solve the flooding problem. The flooding happens when areas up here get ALOT of rain very fast and the rivers that lead to the great lakes overflow. So unless we somehow attach every river to this system (which is logistically impossible) it woun't solve the problem.
Additionaly I doubt the amount of water we would send to the west in a situation where we have an excess in the lakes, would be enough to solve their lack of water problem as we would not be sending that much in the grand scheme.
As a result, a project like this would just be a 10+ billion dollar project, that doesn't completly solve anything and just introduces a system that would need heavy regulation to ensure it is not misused.
I'd be more interested in giving my tax money to projects that actually solve the problem.
But that is just my opinion. You are allowed your own.
@@ScrawnyClownSnatch Well that is why they suggested we use the pipelines we already have for gas and oil. There are pipelines like that all over the place, so you wouldn't have to build new pipelines in most areas. Obviously you would still have to build some, but it wouldn't require building a new pipeline across the entire country, which would obviously be insanely expensive.
If you look at how much food prices jumped up recently due to the war in Ukraine(since Ukraine produces a lot of food to sell worldwide) just imagine how much food prices will raise in the US if California has to stop all farming. Agriculture is the biggest use of water, so if we have to save water otherways, eventually it is going to be that. It isn't just a western states issue if food prices in the US spike. If California no longer produced food, how high would food prices go up? 5 times? 10? 20? Could there be a famine in the US? Could people actually starve to death? It would certainly be possible.
So we need to figure something out.
@@Lilitha11 the idea of recycling pipelines is a good idea and Iike that, but to my knowledge we still would need to drill thru a mountain to install the pipeline. Either that or take a really long roundabout path that might not save money (just a wild guess though).
As for the food supply issue. To my knowledge, the US tends to avoid importing argacultural goods like produce and wheat in favor of producing it locally, (mostly because it spoils by the time it would come form a place overseas like Ukraine). So the war on Ukrain has actually effected the price of raw materials (like metals etc...) more than food to my knowledge while the food shortage has effected mostly Europe as they are close enough to use Urkrains produce and grain.
So the food price increase has mostly been due to inflation and gas prices as far as I'm aware (at least in the US). That said, I do see you're point that the west coast needs something done.
Coincidentally, I read a report recently that California just cleared the creation of a new MASSIVE reservoir mave from a naturally occurring depression in the land. By the looks of it, they may have a plan in the works.
If the people of the South West want water they can move out of the desert. They can move to the Great Lakes and enjoy all the water they want.
They want the water from the Great Lakes, but the warm weather of the Southwest…
@@Needglory23 Reading some of these comments sounds like the people from the Lorax.
As a Canadian, I would fight a war to defend out Great Lakes. If ya wanna live in a friggin' desert then accept the consequences...drawing water from Canada is NOT AN OPTION!
I live on Lake Huron. The Lakes mean everything to the states and areas surrounded by them. I felt the same way when they were proposing to bury nuclear waste miles from the Lakes coast. I’m with you.
As an American who lives by Great Lakes and Mississippi River, me too.
Trust me, we in the Great Lakes region will NEVER allow our water to be stolen from our area.
That’s not very much an American spirit. You act like the southwest states are a foreign place not in the country called UNITED States
@@BlackPhoenix623 OMG...you are downright hilarious!
California has been having water issues since at least the 80s. When I was a kid in Idaho politicians would post videos vilifying other politicians wanting to sign off on selling water to CA.
All the states around the great lakes signed an agreement or treaty stating the water in the great lakes isn't going anywhere. Not for sale.
All the states, and two Canadian provinces...
One huge problem I haven’t seen addressed so far is the shipping that takes place on the lakes from the Atlantic Ocean to the western ports of Lake Superior. This is a major trade route involving every one of the lakes and the rivers and canals connecting them. Each of these waterways would be negatively impacted by the removal of water. Eventually, shipping would cease due to the lack of enough water to support the huge ships that sail the lakes. No water, no shipping, no goods, no jobs, no income. There is much more to this proposal than meets the eye at first glance.
Then they should pump it from the Mississippi River just before it gets to the ocean. Problem solved.
@@goldcoin2444 the Mississippi is literally drying up they don’t need to lose more water by sending it to a desert
@@joefishstone8132 maybe up North it is but I'm suggesting pumping it from south of New Orleans just before it dumps into the Gulf of Mexico.
@@goldcoin2444 I see what you mean, the only problem is that with falling water levels more salt is pushed up into the river. Cities near the gulf that had a fresh water supply prior to this are reporting salt tainted water supply. So it would have to be up river somewhat
@@goldcoin2444 and pulling water from above the salt line would only make the situation worse
I live about a mile from Lake St. Clair in the Detroit area. One very practical problem would be that that lake levels rise and fall. When the water level is high this would not be much of a problem, but when lake levels are low diverting water would impede shipping which is vital for the Great Lakes region.
The political problems are fortunately insurmountable.
Agreed. I live in Windsor and it was only a few years ago when the water levels in Lake Huron and subsequently the Detroit River, were only slightly lower than today and many lake freighters had to reduce their cargo weight as they would sit too deep in the water and hit bottom. This cycle of higher then lower water levels is repetitive so any diversion is a non-starter.
@Judith no one moves to Michigan.
@@Jobratedman Wrong. I did, it's an underrated state and was a good decision.
@@Jobratedman michigan isnt just one big detroit you know.
@@srhautosports9613 that’s the thing.. he doesn’t know because he’s an idiot
A drought? In the desert? Imagine that...
What if people relocated where the local environment could support them?
There's a logical thought! Seriously.
Ain't gonna happen! The American Dream is embedded in Vegas, Hollywood, golf courses and to shift that paradigm would take a global catastrophe like a micronova, pole shift, asteroid or similar cosmic impact, alien invasion, sudden global ice age, or the return of disco music!
@@marktwain368 they actually can still live there. The farms need to relocate. They use almost all the water.
Not gonna happen. I live in upstate NY. We have drought conditions right now, despite having Lake Ontario right here. And also Lake Ontario shrinks nearly every year, more water goes out than in. A pipeline like that will make it worse.
Lake Ontario receives all the water flowing out of lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron. Half of the year crops are not being grown and during that time it snows. We do not lack precipitation, the main problem is the precipitation is in the wrong season. The north east is not lacking water.
Living in the southwest is a choice I made years ago. I would never expect the great lakes to be taped for our benefit out here, to even consider the feasibility is arrogant to no end IMO. The 20th century was one of the moment when we as Humans made great strides in taming the Colorado river, however the drought is also a reminder that without proper management, we are doomed to loose the progress that allowed us to move into the desert in the first place.
Wrong, California can build desalination plants and solve this whole problem, then even with the drought things would improve.
The "taming" of the Colorado was one of the BIGGEST mistakes society has ever made, nothing great about it.
@@Trox2018 I agree to disagree.
When I was living in Texas we got torrential rain and flash flooding sometimes. At the time I was thinking, we should collect all this water and send it to California and the Southwest where they actually need it. Maybe a water pipeline/aquaduct from Texas to the Southwest would make more sense than one from the Great Lakes to the Southwest. Also this route could bypass the Rocky Mountains, making it easier to construct.
I'm seeing a lot of self-identified Great Lakes states residents stamping their feet and saying that they'll never let their water go to the Southwest. Great to know that they're so unwilling to help out their fellow Americans in need. We'll all remember this the next time your region is wrecked by massive blizzards. That's not to say that the Southwest doesn't have to change. No more huge lawns and alfalfa farming. If you want to grow crops don't do it in a freakin desert, for chrissakes. But the concept of taking water from an area that has too much of it and sending it to an area that doesn't have enough of it is a no-brainer.
Those states are rapidly losing population anyway. Better to move that water to places people actually want to seem to live.
@@danielkelly2210 That's the other thing I was thinking. I saw one comment saying, if the people in the Southwest want Great Lakes water they can live in a Great Lakes state. I was thinking, where do you think all those people in the Southwest came from in the first place?
How about people stop moving to areas of the coubtry that don't have enough water to sustain their population
We have a treaty with Canada on water usage. There is also a Supreme Court ruling on how much water each state can remove from the Great Lakes. Most states are at their limits.
You yanks better stay away from our water eh. We need that for beer
Yes; the Great Lakes are shared with us Canadians, so it can’t just be siphoned off by either country…. If there was a drought here in Canada, we couldn’t redirect water either from the Great Lakes, as they’re all connected.🤔
Thank goodness, America politicians would allow the leaks to be drained dried.
Such a Pipeline was vetoed by Canada back in the 1980's. Canada has the rights to much of the Great lakes
Canada does have that right. So California will only draw water from the portion of the lake in the US. 😎😎😎
@@cpcattin Sadly wter cannot come from just a portion of a lake. Can you empty only one side of a glass? And since the 5 lakes are linked, drawing from any single one can affect the others. Especially since here in Minnesota several of the rivers that fed into Superior have been dry three-quarters of the year recently.
ruclips.net/video/t7sBqUUODHM/видео.html
@@williamklett6660 My silly little joke. Great Lakes water to California is foolish and wrong for dozens of reasons. However, there is good reason to explore non-conventional aqueducts from critical locations on the Missouri and or the Mississippi Rivers. Two rivers that have a long deadly and costly history of flooding. The Southwest does not need a new constant water source. Intermittent draws in years of over abundance could keep the two huge reservoirs full. The cost would most likely be in the neighborhood of the cost of California’s high speed rail. (That has no completion date). Current estimates 70 - 80 billion. Newer estimates are near double that.
@@cpcattin My bad then. I had been recently watching about all the mismanagement of water in California and what they pull out of the Colorado River and missed the humor. :)
I mean, really, letting a 90-year-old agreement distribute water. Letting 1980s climate models control California reservoir releases. And all the states too foolish and bullheaded to seriously discuss updating...
What if the Lakes were damned up and the excess water SOLD to anyone who wanted to buy it? How much would Canadian and American tax payers in those states surrounding the Great Lakes benefit from that excess water income?
As a Wisconsinite, I can tell you all of the states that border the lakes would tell anyone trying to get the water to eat dirt. Like you say in the video, EXTREMELY unpopular among the people, we are very protective of our lakes. We would rather the southwest shrivel and die before we hand over our great lakes.
What if the lakes were about to flood the surrounding areas and turn all the neighbouring cities into unlivable swamps, like the new orleans bowl problem. Would you wanna give extra water to southwest in that situation? To protect your cities?
What a cheesy post.
@@brucefromaz7708 youll never get a drop, people will die before your evil reached devils get a drop. Sinerally minnesota
This is one of the very few issues that both parties and every demographic group in that region would fight tooth and nail for. People would take up arms on both sides if they tried making a water pipeline.
Again forget about the Great Lakes focus on flood waters being moved from where and when they are bad to where they are always needed!
I never liked even localized afternoon rain showers on my crops I always preferred them late evening or night not, in the heat of the day.
Just who do you think grows the food you eat? Michigan? Nope....not Michigan or Minnesota...or the others that you claim would take up arms. This is The "United" States of America. Minnesota wouldn't last very long on it's own.
@@johnharrington2400 lol we'll manage. Should have thought about raising the prices on certain foods to compensate for the water usage before begging for water. Build desalination plants. Stop building golf parks and water parks. Get rid of lawns. Allow people to use water catchment. Simple. I've shown this video to two people - one hardcore conservative and one hardcore liberal from NY, both said they'll do whatever it takes to stop this from ever happening if a politician was dumb enough to even suggest this. This is the only time they ever agreed on something and these are the types of people that disagree with eachother out of spite.
@@johnharrington2400 you’re gonna tell me where I eat my food from!? We have farms all over Michigan and the Great Lake states. I promise you we would be fine. Just tells you that ya know nothing about this 🤦♂️🤣 I eat and drink local here. Always have as much as I can. Screw the westerners. They do nothing but waste. Yes there are good people there.. but not many now adays.. all the surrounding Great Lake states would last way way wayyyy longer than anywhere in that sandbox with no water. Uh dur.
As a lifelong Michiganian I think starting any reservoirs by taking great lakes water is a bad idea . Living around the lakes my entire life I understand and felt the majesty of the great lakes , taking water out of them is just a bad idea all around . Once began. who knows where it would end. If people can’t live on the water they have , they should move here rather than us moving water there.
I'm in N.W. Ohio. I love lake Erie the way it is.
That's a bit closed minded in my opinion. We live in a global society. There isn't a civilization on the planet that relies on only itself. Whether it's water, food, oil, etc. there is something being transported to your area that you rely on. Overpopulating water-rich areas doesn't sound like a great solution
@@XKloosyvv sure we live in a global society, in a world where we all can get fresh strawberries year round. That doesn't mean every place doesn't have it's own character. If you're the type of person who enjoys moose hunting, you're better off living in Alaska than Atlanta. People who move to Tucson ought to realize that they're moving to a desert. Desert civilizations historically never had lush green lawns or golf courses. If that's the sort of thing you want, well, maybe don't live in the desert.
Overpopulating water-rich areas might not be so great, but I can't see that overpopulating deserts and then shipping the water out there makes a whole lot more sense.
Would you really want the lakes to be destroyed..by having so many people move too the water? just to have cities like NYC , CHICAGO, L.A! OVER CROWDED AND POLLUTED!!!
If they were allowed to draw the Great Lakes would end up like the Aral Sea.
Taking water from the Great Lakes and lowering the level of them, would cripple the Great Lakes shipping industry. First hit after the shipping shuts down, is the steel industry, and coal transport, which will effect electric power generation.
Since the Great Lakes also is the source of water for Niagra Falls, millions of people would lose power, as there is a very large hydroelectric plant there.
The Lakes also support a large commercial fishing industry.
The economies of ALL of the states and provinces that signed the compact, stand to have their entire economies devastated. That's millions of people.
The people of those states and provinces need to protect the Great Lakes and it's waters by any means necessary!
Also, there is another hydro power further downstream (north east) of Lake Ontario on the St Lawrence River, near Massena, NY
Realistically, the Great Lakes is outside the scope of a diversion from East to West...the Great Lakes basin is already divided from the Mississippi/Missouri River drainage. Yes, I am aware of the diversion at Chicago...it is the exception that proves the rule, and it has created enough problems with invasive species.
If you want water and you live in a desert, what you really need are U Hauls (h/t ti the late Sam Kinison).
The US largest Iron ore supply come from Wisconsin by ship. You can't supply ore to Gary Works, in Gary, Indiana, on the shore of Lake Michigan by truck or train.
Its the largest steel mill in North America.
... I'm from Duluth, y'all exaggerate how wonderful is great lakes.. We could do without Lake Superior, only 200k people live by it and I can see out my window the 20 boats that fish the west end... Just build a dam at E end and let it all be diverted west thru Idaho to E Wa potato fields. It's so dark up north most lakes have low vegetation so low fish numbers, we could grow far more potatoes than fish we'd lose .. California drained it's Tulare lake a huge lake, acting like lakes beat having good farms is silly ... As Duluther, you pay me $100,000 and the other 200,000 by it and you can drain Lake Superior. And we d barely notice, and we d plant wheat on drained land of lake superior. Google Lake Tulare, California boomed after draining it. .... People want to eat but whine when people want to divert water for ag, whiners. .. Mexico City was a lake, now 20m live there, so us humans drain lakes it's not the end of the world.... Be honest you all would take $100000 if they wanted to drain local lake and showd how theyd make the lake bottom farmland with a few pretty ponds and creeks , change is not always bad, your towns use to be crap scrub woods and swamps..... Drain Superior!!!
@@MikeB3542 You note the diversion via the Chicago river: That's the place to point towards - the diversion has lost allocation, demonstrating how little great lakes water there is to go around.
Thinking that there is a whole bunch of water in the great lakes means there is a bunch of water to go around. Nope, it isn't the case. The drainage basin of the great lakes is quite small. Just look at Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. All three sates are almost entirely in the Mississippi basin. Only the smallest border near Lake Michigan or Lake Erie are outside the Mississippi basin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippiriver-new-01.png
Note that much of Minnesota is outside the Mississippi basin, but the West part of the state drains North to Hudson bay via the Red River.
It's actually very simple as to why we shouldn't do this. These lakes were created by massive pressure incurred by glacial activity. The depths of the bases of these lakes i.e. the bottom are actually maintained by the sheer vast weight of the standing water. If you start draining the lakes the base of the lakes you will start a cascading rise of the bases of the lakes. In a relatively small amount of time the lakes would disappear.
2:00 This is the thing that gets glossed over in every discussion about AZ water. If we stopped using tremendous amounts of water on alfalfa and cattle feed, we'd be fine.
Instead we have corporate megafarms draining aquifers and leaving entire towns high and dry (e.g. Wilcox)
So, no More food is your proposition? Interesting.
@@scott2862 growing food in the dessert is stupid.
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf I’m more inclined to think living in the Desert with no water unless you’re relying on another states support is stupid.
But hey, there y’all are and every one of you fools need to eat.
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf
It is done because desert climates combined with a high degree of water control is one of the most superior agricultural conditions in the world. It's why California's central valley is so very productive, as well as the Snake River Valley in the American Northwest (Idaho, etc). It was precisely why ancient Egypt was so successful. Of course the Nile River was highly dependable the vast majority of the time, and digging trenches to irrigate fields was relatively easy. Of course today, the Nile's dependability is under threat with the dam that Ethiopia is constructing. So much so that there have been talks of war between Egypt and Ethiopia over it.
@@viceroyviceroy-wj7cf it’s silly to worry what’s thought of your silence but silliness is preferable to looking like a fool when you speak. The best tomatoes ever came from five year old tomato plants I had in my back yard in Tucson Arizona. With a little six mill plastic several old coolers full of water it was an amazingly productive little 12 by 15foot garden for nine months a year, that I kept alive the summer months with 85% shade. Strawberries the size of baseballs, slice a tomato in half and the aroma would immediately spread thru out the whole house! Now not to nock down our friends up north but the majestic sky’s around Tucson most every sunset sure beats those dreary winter days up north, and it sure is easier to add moisture to the air than it is to take it out!
I live in the west and the amount of water that we waste is unbelievable, and you are absolutely correct when you say the solution is within our own conservation and common sense use of water. But water is money and when you put the two together all common sense goes out the window? Greed takes over and the power struggle continues!
What Glen said. Absolutely.
Yes, and combine that with political hacks (like CA's Newsom) who are blithering idiots. Yet the braindead voters there keep supporting and electing the likes of him, Pelosi, Schiff, etc. time after time. As far as I'm concerned, they'll continue getting what they deserve because of their combined ignorance.
As a state though, it doesn't matter how much water you or your family save (that doesn't mean go crazy wasting it), it matters how much we save in farming.
@@Theinatoriinator agreed
We have many water pipes to the Southwest. They're called rivers. They carry the water that is wasted in the Southwest. Sending water from the Great Lakes would be like giving money to a gambling addict - it doesn't solve anything, but just creates more problems.
The Colorado River hasn't made it to the Pacific ocean in over 10 years. The majority of water from the Colorado River is used to grow crops is Northern California and Mexico. That's where we get the food in our grocery stores. If you don't like eating, ignore the water shortage!
The end result years down the road it would probably drain the great lakes. Alfalfa consumes more water then any of the other crops grown, and the Alfalfa that's grown, most of it is ship overseas to people that don't even like us. So I say no
To grow almonds in arid areas is just as nuts.
The solution is simple, STOP GROWING CROPS IN THE DESERT! Growing up in SoCal and living in Vegas for a while, I’ve seen the impact of this “latest drought” and it boggles the mind that people are STILL trying to grow crops in Arizona. Plus, Arizona and Nevada are still seeing population growth (more people = more homes = more water needed). Here’s another solution for everyone living in the American Southwest - MOVE OUT OF THE DESERT! Problem solved
Idk about las vegas and phoenix, but ABQ isn't going anywhere, the only reason it exists is because of federal funding into KAFB and SNL.
I remember reading once that a lot of people will migrate to Arizona specifically because the dry desert air is supposed to be good for allergy sufferers, but the green lawns have negated that.
You can thank thieving politicians making sure only male trees got planted thru out the country, can’t have the poor eating for free!
Arizona desert dweller I have always had bad allergies no matter where in Arizona. Same when in any other state I've been total of 15 different states, Mexico and Canada. I just can't out run my runny nose, itchy eyes and sneezing 🤧
@@opusydaisy6563 eat thirty of Shakely’s alfalfa tabs a day. It will bring on the alfalfa blues. Within five days you won’t believe the amount of water that will flow out of your sinuses. That will last awhile once the flow stops you can cut the number of tabs down if the sniffles return go back up in the number you’ll see it works!
I moved here because of rheumatoid arthritis. The dryness has all but cured me.
@@badactor3440 surely you jest? You must have removed all process foods, most night shade vegetables from your diet! Funny the ignorance of the voters they have not a clue how dangerous their vote is to themselves for their picks have sold out to the largest lobbying group in the USofA, the food industry! We all have the freedom to buy solid or liquid and consume what will bring on diabetes,and the inflammation which leads to the pharmaceutical industries massive profits as they barely alleviate any pain which in the end their medications are on par with what the food industry poisoned US with! You fools understand that even Russia and China banned many of the USofA’s food additives that your politicians being greedy morons approved for your consumption!
I am one of millions of Michiganders who will raise absolute hell if anybody tries to siphon away our great lakes. I know people in the surrounding states feel the same way. There will be war before we allow our most precious resource to be stolen from us
Water from the Great Lakes is governed by an international treaty with Canada. The US cannot unilaterally decide to pump water from the Great lakes out west.
The US cannot legally* unilaterally decide to pump water from the Great Lakes out west. The US doesn't have a good track record of respecting other countries.
It’s called the Great Lakes compact
There are laws prohibiting Great Lakes water from being pioed more than X miles from their origin.
It's an international treaty.
Sorry zippy, moving bv to the desert was YOUR idea.
I would love to see a video on the idea of a pipeline from the ocean to the great salt lake.
There are a few opportunities in the US southwest to increast moisture/rainfall. Death Valley for example.
I live in Detroit and I would be very unhappy if they started draining the lakes to pump a desert full of water to grow crops that aren’t even meant to grow there. I will never understand why they built a massive city in the desert and are shocked that they are running out of water. The definition of a desert literally means that very little rain falls there .
I am against this aqueduct. Build desalination plants...and maybe not build megacities in a desert!
It is a concern that we do need California for a lot of vegetables/fruits.... hopefully they can figure it out with desalination plants
Desalination is very destructive to everything. Look it up. It's not the right solution. Move the water from flood zones.
Desalination plants are a horrible idea. You would cause less ecological damage with this aquaduct than with the desalination plants.
You really need to look at decentralized solutions. Lots of water where you're at, you're just sending it down sewers. There are enough brown outs from pumping water and desalination plants would just be more strain.
Look into rainwater harvesting, works a lot better than you realize.
Brad Lancaster is a great source as well as Geoff Lawton.
You do know that in Arizona some farmers are still allowed to pump ground water without ANY metering. None... They can pump as much as they want for free. Why in the hell would they stop? And why the hell should people in cities subsidize that sort of behavior?
Soil degradation is a huge part of the issue as well. Healthy soil can store water, depleted soil doesn’t. Farmers in California should be focused on rebuilding soil instead of just adding inputs like fertilizer and watering for hours
That pipeline would be an endorsement of people out west wasting as much water as they wanted. Let them desalinate ocean water, and pay for it on a quarterly household water bill.
Counterproposal: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and east river North and South Dakota form a union state and set up forts at all Missouri River crossings to keep out the Mongol hordes to the west who come migrating this way when they've dried up their aquifers
Can Ohio get in on that?
@@josiahhockenberry9846 I dunno man, that's a long way east, administratively... logical borders for an empire of that size would be the Missouri River in the west, extending as far as Williston; the Missouri River from Kansas City to St. Louis; the current southern borders of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and I can't find an eastern border that works well (we may have to push into the hills of eastern Pennsylvania). Not to mention the cultural differences between the midwest in IN, IL and OH, and the upper midwest in MN, WI and the eastern Dakotas that would be bound to cause tension. As such, I think Ohio's interests are better served in a confederacy with eastern PA, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. A union with the Minneapolitan Empire would simply be too large to govern in the near-apocapyptic conditions of that world, if regional differences didn't rip it apart anyway.
Good luck. Washington and Oregon have been overrun for years by hordes of Californians.
Nah, the west will starve you out long before that. Good luck growing food around the Great Lakes in January!
Sounds like a plan to me.
I live 20 mins away from each of 2 Great Lakes. The other 3 are a few hours drive. You're damn right we will protect our water rights. You want to farm in the desert that's your business. Deal with it.
The Southwest has created their own water problems by developing deserts and vegetation to survive in that environment. If they’re given access to water sources from the mid-west, the region will find pressure on their water resources. Let the west and southwest come up with conservation solutions and other sources like desalination to solve their water needs.
Agreed, but it's also going to take responsibility for building/allowing desal plants, limiting birth rates and limiting immigration/migration. At the same time, responsibility also lies with other states to take care of their own infrastructure. Unfortunately nothing ever gets done.
6% goes to residential, 5% goes to industry. The rest to agriculture. If these states grew ag. only for themselves instead of everybody else like you, lake Mead would be full. Grow your own food.
95 percent of US winter vegetables come from Yuma Arizona. Maybe you should do with out if you don't want to share.
When you move water from one basin to another, the source basin does not recover the water lost and you end up depleting the source. This is why it is generally illegal to move water from one basin to another.
Then they should pump it from the Mississippi River just before it gets to the ocean. Problem solved.
@@goldcoin2444 Then the Mississippi would run dry. You cannot move water from one basin and expect that basin to replentish itself. Do they not teach this in schools anymore???
@@TomKirkman1 the Mississippi dumps its water into the gulf of Mexico and then to the Atlantic Ocean. I don't think we're capable of draining that.
@@goldcoin2444 The basin that creates and supplies the Mississippi relies on a certain amount of evap as if flows to the gulf. Start taking water there and you lose that, plus the amount that would then go into the gulf and the Atlantic changes. You can't move water from one basin to another without catastrophic changes.
@@TomKirkman1 You don't seem to realize that the Feds can do whatever they want. They can move what they want where they want because they have an army and you don't.
One engineering difficulty that wasn't emphasized enough is that Phoenix sits 500ft higher than lake Michigan. This means that an "aqueduct" style solution would not work, since aqueducts rely on water flowing down hill through gravity. A pipeline would have to be used instead, greatly increasing the cost and complexity. This problem gets worse if you try to shorten the distance by say just delivering the water to the upper colorado river basin as some commenters have suggested, getting water to the closest part of the watershed (Grand Lake) would require getting the water up 7500ft, before you consider getting over or through the Rocky Mountains. Even the most reasonable path out to the Little Snake River would require a lift of 5500ft. The amount of energy these high elevation alternatives would take would be absurd.
In a way, you are almost shipping energy at that point. By feeding the water up to that height, a lot can be reclaimed through dams along the river, but also at a huge cost.
It is beginning to sound like radical water conservation strategies will be the much more achievable and effective of all the available choices.
This is the situation that should have been addressed in the video from a geologic perspective as that is what the videographer claims knowledge or training in, not the other issues mentioned, imo
It would not make sense to send the water directly to Phoenix. It would enter into the Colorado River at a different northern point.
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Bingo.. first build 2 HUGE lakes in North Dakota and in South Dakota.. then get Elon to build a tunnel to the Colorado River.. the Romans would have done it this way.. they actually made water run up hill using Reverse Syphons..
Absolutely not. Leave the Great Lakes alone. Texas tried getting a water pipeline from the Great Lakes in the 1980's.