• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lake Mead is shrinking -- and with it Las Vegas' water supply

roguenuke said:
For civilians to do this and be as efficient as possible, they would basically have to integrate the desalination plants into close operation with an electric power plant near a large body of water, preferably the ocean. Plus there is the issue of more pollution being in the water closer to land than at sea. That means ensuring better monitoring of water than we do (we don't generally have to worry about foreign chemicals in our water, just microbes, bacteria, and maybe some algae, by the time we make the water, the chemicals have already diluted to pretty much undetectable levels)..
Click to expand...

Assuming civilians/military/public/private can pull off large body water/electric power plant/desalination;
Do you think we will ever be capable of doing great infrastructure again, based on the Eisenhower model?
My biggest dream idea for a few days has been to move flood/excess water from the East-to-the-west .
 
We could use that salt back here EAST of the Mississippi River with another heavy winter.
Tell you what, we'll transport our flood waters and take your ocean salt.
In Illinois, we call that quid pro quo, pay for play, governors go to jail.
I'm already bargaining for Hudson Bay water in exchange for KXL .
AlbqOwl said:
I would suggest they find a way to purify it for human consumption, let it dry up, and let all that great sea salt become an important new American industry.
Click to expand...
 
How concentrated is the solution?
I'm thinking it could be supersaturated.
How about sending the brine water to a dry lake and let the water evaporate, then skim the salt .
roguenuke said:
Depends on what is in it. It is still water, just very salty water with pretty much anything else found in ocean water, including even some seacreatures. Close to shore, it is also going to have some chemicals and other pollutants, dependent on where exactly the plant would be located. It could be transported anywhere water can, but it might not be worth it to do it, since I really don't know the cost of such a venture.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
We could use that salt back here EAST of the Mississippi River with another heavy winter.
Tell you what, we'll transport our flood waters and take your ocean salt.
In Illinois, we call that quid pro quo, pay for play, governors go to jail.
I'm already bargaining for Hudson Bay water in exchange for KXL .
Click to expand...

Sounds like a deal to me. But you'll have to look to California, Oregon, and Washington State for that ocean salt. But you have to transport that flood water through somewhere to get it there and New Mexico would be pleased to have it come through here, provided we get to charge a toll which of course would be a portion of that water.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Sounds like a deal to me. But you'll have to look to California, Oregon, and Washington State for that ocean salt. But you have to transport that flood water through somewhere to get it there and New Mexico would be pleased to have it come through here, provided we get to charge a toll which of course would be a portion of that water.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal.
Once we get to the Rockies, we have to go with a pipe for moving water.
Just think, if it leaks we won't have to deal with a toxic substance.
In fact, they could even run it through farm fields and have irrigation spikes.
A quick look on the big map shows Raton/Trinidad as a good place to start and run it between the two states all the way to Page, AZ.
At this point, the Colorado R. gets replenished but the National Park will have to adjust .
 
NIMBY said:
Here's the deal.
Once we get to the Rockies, we have to go with a pipe for moving water.
Just think, if it leaks we won't have to deal with a toxic substance.
In fact, they could even run it through farm fields and have irrigation spikes.
A quick look on the big map shows Raton/Trinidad as a good place to start and run it between the two states all the way to Page, AZ.
At this point, the Colorado R. gets replenished but the National Park will have to adjust .
Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable plan to me. Now how do we get Obama to appoint you flood water czar?
 
I'm going to go around Mr. Obama, just as he is going around Congress.
While I'm thinking about it, I'll go around Congress also.
Without a Suez or Erie-type Canal run off the Mississippi R. going west, we can't get rid of our flood water.
South of the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers looks tentaive for a launching point.
AlbqOwl said:
Seems like a reasonable plan to me. Now how do we get Obama to appoint you flood water czar?
Click to expand...
I will admit that I also have this dream about a neverending Citizens Constitutional Convention in St. Louis,
eliminating all Politicians but still under mental construction.
 
NIMBY said:
It's good to hear that these measures are being done.

As per post #176 of this thread, where are you on the "one million cubic feet per second" of water being dumped into the ocean.
Is there potential for water pipelines to begin on the south side of the Columbia R.?
Even more dreaming, how about an "ERIE-style" Canal, to begin East of the Cascades for obvious land-feature reasons?
Click to expand...

Speaking as one who knows how Northern California has been raped of water to supply SoCal I'm dead set against shipping water south from Oregon or making the forests any drier than they are just so folks can fill swimming pools. Especially when, as I said, there is an easily accomplished and inexpensive answer.

NIMBY said:
With what we're hearing that it will take at least 20 years for the West to come out of this thing with good moisture,
it appears to me that eventually the expense of desalination will be worth it for certain areas.
Click to expand...

Desalinization is a dead end. Why put even more hurt on the ocean, a major source of food btw, when we just don't have to.
 
You make a lot of sense on both points.
I feel fortunate to have been West for 40 years, so I feel the pain of your drought.
I know how difficult the water fights are.
clownboy said:
Speaking as one who knows how Northern California has been raped of water to supply SoCal I'm dead set against shipping water south from Oregon or making the forests any drier than they are just so folks can fill swimming pools. Especially when, as I said, there is an easily accomplished and inexpensive answer.
Click to expand...
As long as you're dry, that's a no-go.
However, if the Columbia is dumping into the ocean, help out Northern California.



Desalinization is a dead end. Why put even more hurt on the ocean, a major source of food btw, when we just don't have to.
Click to expand...
I'm back to moving flood water west by using an Erie Canal, not nearly as big, just South of the Ohio R./Mississippi R. Junction.
Run it west to Joplin, MO, delicately threading Springfield and Branson.
It may have to go canal to water-pipe to canal, etc., depending on Land features.
Then head from Joplin all the way to Raton/Trinidad.
I can assure you Joplin needs the jobs.
In advance, I'd like to lock all the politicians inside DC .
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
First thing the desert SW needs to do is stop exporting it's water to other states. Second thing to remember is it is a very arid climate and not well suited to be inhabited like it is a lush oasis in the desert. Third a prolonged drought might indicate climate change... :roll:
Click to expand...

...so you are saying Colorado, the source of water for much of the west and south central states, gets to keep its water? Yeah!

Unfortunately water rights law is very complex, with much of it set over 100 years ago. Even though Colorado has far more water than it needs, much of it belongs to down-stream states, so we have our rationing of water here as well.... What is that saying? "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink"?
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
Every golf course uses up to one million gallons a day. Southern California 600, Utah 117, Arizona 322, and Nevada 98.
Well over ONE BILLION GALLONS A DAY!
You don't think that would make a huge impact on the Colorado river?
Click to expand...

Not a bad estimate you were off by a factor of two it is a little over 2 billion gallons of water a day.

http://www.usga.org/uploadedFiles/USGAHome/Course_Care/Golf_and_the_Environment/Water/214418%20Lyman,%20Greg%20-%20How%20Much%20Water%20Does%20Golf%20Use.pdf

From 2003-2005, the average water use for golf course irrigation in the U.S. was estimated to be 2,312,701 acrefeet per year. That equates to approximately 2.08 billion gallons of water per day for golf course irrigation in the U.S. According to the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000” report, approximately 408 billion gallons of water per day are withdrawn in the U.S. Golf course irrigation accounts for 0.5 percent of this total.
Click to expand...
 
upsideguy said:
...so you are saying Colorado, the source of water for much of the west and south central states, gets to keep its water?
Click to expand...
Talk about a touchy regional issue.
Water Agreements among several states are a BFD.
The eastern part of your state is in the Ogallalla network.

Unfortunately water rights law is very complex, with much of it set over 100 years ago. Even though Colorado has far more water than it needs, much of it belongs to down-stream states, so we have our rationing of water here as well.... What is that saying? "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure Denver owns Winter Park on the other side of the Front Range for many reasons, water one of them .
 
NIMBY said:
An even scarier number.
Golfing is a very powerful and elite lobbying group.
Besides the golf courses, the golf-housing communities are immensely valuable .
Click to expand...

I personally would shut down municipal golf courses and make the remainder pay through the teeth for their water.

The article that I referenced said only 12% use recycled water and that does not imply that they recycle the water that they use.
 
I actually feel guilty for playing the game since I was young, though I don't play much any more.
Unless people have driven through Oklahoma, they have no idea how you feel.
I could be coming March 20-22 for the Wrestling NCAAs in Oklahoma City and I'll try to bring some of this snow with me .
Shadow Serious said:
I personally would shut down municipal golf courses and make the remainder pay through the teeth for their water.

The article that I referenced said only 12% use recycled water and that does not imply that they recycle the water that they use.
Click to expand...
 
APACHERAT said:
Pretending I'm a liberal, it's Bush's fault. The drought started during the Bush administration.

That was fun.

The left believes that government can control the weather. I don't concur. Government can regulate how water is used. They can regulate how the underground water tables are replenished. They can control our rivers. (The Constitution gave that responsibility to the U.S. Army, Army Corps of Engineers.)

I remember over on the old Politico Forum there were a number of Europeans who brought up how government made it illegal to capture rain run off from one's roof, that the rain water had to be allowed to replenish the water table underground or runoff into streams and rivers.
Click to expand...

I read that Colorado was the one State that all but banned the practice but has loosened the laws recently in 2009. Some States have restrictions on the practice also.
 
You're more than familiar with the term "wash", as in a dry river.
I've come across some pretty nasty mud flows, especially in Utah, in violent rain storms.
It's always frustrated me that it seems that flash-flooding is a waste of water.
Shadow Serious said:
I read that Colorado was the one State that all but banned
the practice but has loosened the laws recently in 2009. Some States have restrictions on the practice also.
Click to expand...
If we ever figure out how to run a water-pipe from the confluence of the Ohio/Mississippi to the west, Oklahoma will benefit .
 
Shadow Serious said:
I read that Colorado was the one State that all but banned the practice but has loosened the laws recently in 2009. Some States have restrictions on the practice also.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it, any rain that falls out of the sky that falls on privately owned property belongs to the owner of that property, not the federal or state government or anyone else.

It's the property owners personal property until the runoff reaches a stream and contributory to a waterway, river, etc. then the water belongs to who ever has water rights to the water. Once a waterway become navigable, where you can put a row boat or canoe in the waterway, it usually becomes federal water.
 
NIMBY said:
You're more than familiar with the term "wash", as in a dry river.
I've come across some pretty nasty mud flows, especially in Utah, in violent rain storms.
It's always frustrated me that it seems that flash-flooding is a waste of water.

If we ever figure out how to run a water-pipe from the confluence of the Ohio/Mississippi to the west, Oklahoma will benefit .
Click to expand...

I consider the runoff from flooding to be a waste also. If there were a economical way to build reservoirs to store some of that runoff that would help some.

At this point Oklahoma might have to look forward to getting water from a desalination plant in the Gulf.
 
NIMBY said:
I actually feel guilty for playing the game since I was young, though I don't play much any more.
Click to expand...

That's okay the ignorance of youth and all.:lol:

Unless people have driven through Oklahoma, they have no idea how you feel.
Click to expand...

Yeah Oklahoma has had it times of drout.

I could be coming March 20-22 for the Wrestling NCAAs in Oklahoma City and I'll try to bring some of this snow with me .

:peace
 
APACHERAT said:
The way I look at it, any rain that falls out of the sky that falls on privately owned property belongs to the owner of that property, not the federal or state government or anyone else.

It's the property owners personal property until the runoff reaches a stream and contributory to a waterway, river, etc. then the water belongs to who ever has water rights to the water. Once a waterway become navigable, where you can put a row boat or canoe in the waterway, it usually becomes federal water.
Click to expand...

At least that is how it should be.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I consider the runoff from flooding to be a waste also.
If there were a economical way to build reservoirs to store some of that runoff that would help some.
Click to expand...
I'm becoming more serious each post about the water pipe-line from the Mississippi River to the Colorado river at Page,
during times of floods and high water.
All states along the way will benefit.

At this point Oklahoma might have to look forward to getting water from a desalination plant in the Gulf.
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of talk from the California people about how desalination is so expensive.
With the energy boom in the Keystone states, you guys just might be able to pull it off .
 
Shadow Serious said:
I personally would shut down municipal golf courses and make the remainder pay through the teeth for their water.

The article that I referenced said only 12% use recycled water and that does not imply that they recycle the water that they use.
Click to expand...
They should just use recycled water for all of them.

I figured 1/6 of the Colorado river water, but that was based on a billion gallons. Could it really be more like 1/3? That is way too much just for a game.
 
NIMBY said:
I'm becoming more serious each post about the water pipe-line from the Mississippi River to the Colorado river at Page,
during times of floods and high water.
All states along the way will benefit.



There's been a lot of talk from the California people about how desalination is so expensive.
With the energy boom in the Keystone states, you guys just might be able to pull it off .
Click to expand...

This is not a new problem. Water export - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People with foresight should be looking to the Keystone pipeline as well, especially since no new sources of energy are being constructed. There seems to be a serious lack of leadership regarding issues that really are a matter of life and death.
 
This just goes to show you never know. No matter how hard people plan there can always be the unexpected. Who could have ever guessed that millions of people moving to live in a semi-arid desert could possibly ever have a water shortage? :roll:

Maybe some of them should move to some place more geographically rational. Like New Orleans. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom