Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plan to Pipe Missouri River Water to Colorado
CBS St Louis ^ | 12/11/12

Posted on 12/17/2012 11:03:53 AM PST by dirtboy

DENVER (KMOX) - The battle for more river water is about to get even more serious.

Along with the debate over whether to send more water down the Missouri River for navigation purposes, enter Colorado in the picture.

The Colorado River is low on water and, according to the New York Times, a plan by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation is about to be revealed that would take water from the Missouri River and send it into a 600 mile pipeline to the Colorado River.

It would provide the Colorado River Basin with 600,000 acre-feet of water each year. The plan reportedly calls for building a pipeline from the Missouri River to Denver along with a mammoth pumping station at Leavenworth, Kansas to send water to the mile-high city.

(Excerpt) Read more at stlouis.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Colorado; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: water; waterworld
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 12/17/2012 11:03:57 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Denver is the NEW Los Angeles when it comes to water THEFT!


2 posted on 12/17/2012 11:06:12 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

How ‘bout NO ?


3 posted on 12/17/2012 11:08:52 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Ping.


4 posted on 12/17/2012 11:15:47 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Oh I get it..kinda like spreading the wealth around! It’s only fair.


5 posted on 12/17/2012 11:16:49 AM PST by Radio Free American? (When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
It would be a massive undertaking to build such a pipeline but water policy expert at the University of Colorado, Chuck Howe, is quoted as saying, given the drought situation, it’s no longer unrealistic.

Hey Chuckee, why start at the Missouri. Let's start right there in Boulder and build the pipeline from there. You got plenty of water.

6 posted on 12/17/2012 11:24:19 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I see another technology trap in the making here. A big city like L.A., NYC, Chicago etc. draws in resources from all around it sometimes from many hundreds of miles away. It not only becomes dependent on those resources, it becomes hostage to them too. Remove the Electricity, water, in incoming food shipments and millions of people are at risk of dying.


7 posted on 12/17/2012 11:25:09 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Shovel ready jobs?


8 posted on 12/17/2012 11:25:32 AM PST by boomop1 (term limits will only save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

If they’re actually going to do this, it seems like it would be a lot simpler to pump from the vicinity of Lake McConaughy in Nebraska.


9 posted on 12/17/2012 11:28:41 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I can’t wait to see the EPA shrieking to the front of the line with handfuls of impact studies a la Keystone XL.


10 posted on 12/17/2012 11:34:30 AM PST by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

There ARE times when the Missouri basin has more H2O than it can readily handle. They had quite a large flood there a couple years back. There are also a lot of times when it struggles to maintain navigation. If Colorado wants to set up an overflow pipeline, to some large reservoir within their boundaries, to accept donations when such surpluses occur, to dole them out in the dry years, AND be willing to accept a significant chunk of their own acreage will often be a large mud puddle, a deal could probably be made. I don’t know well how often and how large such donations might be expected nor what land Colorado might sacrifice to hold it. But they shouldn’t plan on always having it available.


11 posted on 12/17/2012 11:36:20 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Much like the LCRA river authority sending water to the south Texas rice farmers. They’re killing the businesses up stream that depend on the river. But noooo, they have big lobbyists. Never mind that Texas is always in some stage of drought but we have to waste tax dollars so there can be soggy rice paddies. Can’t they be logical for once and plant some of the countless other crops that don’t need all this extra water?


12 posted on 12/17/2012 11:38:25 AM PST by bgill (We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
One of the guys who wrote UN Agenda 21 tried to do something similar but got shut down. Then he decided to screw us all.

YouTube: Agenda 21 Explained

13 posted on 12/17/2012 11:39:56 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state." - Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

We should be removing all of the dams on the Colorado river and let it run wild as in nature. We have no salmon to save there but we ould come up with some kind of endangered fish or animal.


14 posted on 12/17/2012 11:41:37 AM PST by dirtymac (Now is the for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Chinatown.

Control the water, control everything.

FMCDH(BITS)

15 posted on 12/17/2012 11:54:40 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Uhhh, I know that this seldom factors into the conversation when we’re about to do something really neat and keen, but who in the hell is going to pay for this?


16 posted on 12/17/2012 12:06:07 PM PST by technically right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The Colorado River is low on water and, according to the New York Times, a plan by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation is about to be revealed that would take water from the Missouri River and send it into a 600 mile pipeline to the Colorado River.

Um....no.

The Colorado River starts on the western side of the Continental Divide, and with the exception of a few diversionary tunnels feeding Denver, it does not have anything to do with eastern Colorado's lack of water.

So, if someone's thinking about pumping Missouri water to the Colorado River, that's gonna be one helluva pump!
17 posted on 12/17/2012 12:13:19 PM PST by frankenMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: technically right

“who in the hell is going to pay for this?”

Well, as an Arizona boy, I’d recommend...Arizona & Colorado & California.


18 posted on 12/17/2012 12:15:05 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

why not start the pipe line from one of the great lakes


19 posted on 12/17/2012 12:30:21 PM PST by jrd (DO AWAY WITH THE EPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; US Navy Vet; fieldmarshaldj

Actually, this would be a very good idea if they only drew the water during spring flood.

It would be a great idea for flood control.

In fact if they could figure out a way to efficiently skim off the top ten feet during spring flood above the red river, they’d do everyone in the missippi basin a whole lot of good.


20 posted on 12/17/2012 12:35:32 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Kansas and Missouri did not vote for Obamugabe. Colorado DID.

See how that works, boys and girls?


21 posted on 12/17/2012 12:52:51 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The Columbia river should be diverted to the high plains, but that wouldn’t waste enough money or be dependent enough on future allocations to as effectively enslave the recipients.

And Washington and Oregon are dependable Dem states.


22 posted on 12/17/2012 1:00:31 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac

How about the dams on the Columbia river?


23 posted on 12/17/2012 1:08:01 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Dams on the Columbia primarily affect the more conservative parts of WA and OR. Dams on the Colorado affect a lot more liberals. Like the Hetch Hetchy reservoir that supplies San Francisco. They (SF) are able to meet their own needs and sell more to surrounding communities. The are also able to sell a significant amount of electricity to others.

There is an attempt to remove the H.H. reservoir, like the enviromentalist are screaming about the Columbia, and the libtards in SF are going crazy trying to prevent this from happening.

The water issue is never about what the libtards are stating as a cause. It is totally about power and the destruction of the U.S.

So, I am kind of being sarcastic. But what if it were an issue. Go after the libtards wather supply for LA, SF and Sacramento. The libtards were very successful in the Central Valley of CA so it can work.


24 posted on 12/17/2012 1:15:58 PM PST by dirtymac (Now is the for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

If the water gets piped to the Colorado River then it can end up going all the way to Los Angeles. Why, oh why, do I smell the stench of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California all over this?


25 posted on 12/17/2012 1:27:26 PM PST by MeganC (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrd
Canada will veto that. Also Mn, Wisc, Michigan, Ohio, Penn. and NY. There's a town in Wisc, about 10 miles from lake Michigan but outside the lake's drainage basin, they were not allowed to pipe water from the lake.

why not start the pipe line from one of the great lakes

26 posted on 12/17/2012 1:28:15 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jrd
Well we have a little treaty among the states in the watershed and Canada that forbids it for one thing.
27 posted on 12/17/2012 1:35:15 PM PST by smithandwesson76subgun (full auto fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DManA

did not know that...thanks for the info


28 posted on 12/17/2012 1:38:32 PM PST by jrd (DO AWAY WITH THE EPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frankenMonkey

I have understood that a lot of CO water goes down the CO River unused. That was why they planned the Twoforks damn that never happened thanks to evironazies. Would come in handy about now.


29 posted on 12/17/2012 1:46:08 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

All of the water gets used. But these days Mexico gets some of it. Didn’t used to be that way.

In the end nothing but a marsh marks the place where the colorado runs into the gulf of california.


30 posted on 12/17/2012 1:52:23 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
All of the water gets used.

It does. Still, I believe some of what CO is entitled to is used by AZ and CA because CO has no way to store it.

31 posted on 12/17/2012 2:12:49 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

till, I believe some of what CO is entitled to is used by AZ and CA because CO has no way to store it.
....
The way the divy up the water is by an agreement that was made sometime in the 1930’s or 40’s. not sure which. but it was before the big cities in nevada became big. so nevada didn’t get much of a slice. for that matter neither did colorado because there wasn’t much population west of the front range. most of the water went to arizona and california. mexico has managed to negotiate a larger slice than they used to. maybe nevada and colorado have too —but I haven’t heard about it.


32 posted on 12/17/2012 2:19:23 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DManA

why not start the pipe line from one of the great lakes
..........
last I heard the great lakes states wouldn’t allow their water to be pumped. Its a shorter distance in any case from the missouri.


33 posted on 12/17/2012 2:21:41 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
maybe nevada and colorado have too —but I haven’t heard about it.

Don't know. I was mistaken about twoforks, it was to be on the Platt, not CO River.

34 posted on 12/17/2012 2:36:51 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
According to the article, the source is a leak to the New York Times. There seem to be many inaccuracies. Denver is not in the Colorado Basin but is in the Platte River Basin, which flows into the Missouri. Denver would be the worst place to get water in the Colorado, because you would have to pump it over the highest part of the Continental Divide. "Massive" would not describe the pumps needed. Better to run the line through Wyoming and come down behind the Front Range. Finally, Colorado gets a relatively small share of Colorado River water.

Plus, this is supposed to be a Department of the Interior project. If something like this is afoot in this administration, betcha a box of Twinkies it is for some form of enviro cause.

35 posted on 12/17/2012 4:57:51 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

I’m sure a dozen Indian tribes could also tie it up in court for at least a generation.

Really the age of great civil engineering projects is over in the US.


36 posted on 12/17/2012 5:40:10 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
I'm not sure what you are saying. If you are talking about the Red River of the North, that drains into Hudson's bay.

In fact if they could figure out a way to efficiently skim off the top ten feet during spring flood above the red river, they’d do everyone in the missippi basin a whole lot of good.

37 posted on 12/17/2012 5:46:04 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

While I’m certainly no engineer, bringing water south from Montana, across Wyoming, and into Colorado, sure makes a whole lot more sense than pumping it from a thousand miles downstream.


38 posted on 12/17/2012 5:57:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Keep the guns, ban the anti-God-given rights politicians from ever holding office again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I’m not sure what you are saying. If you are talking about the Red River of the North, that drains into Hudson’s bay.

In fact if they could figure out a way to efficiently skim off the top ten feet during spring flood above the red river, they’d do everyone in the missippi basin a whole lot of good.
..............
Where does the Red River begin?
The headwaters are the source of a stream/river. The Red River begins its total length of 1,360 miles in the Texas panhandle. The origins of the Red River are two forks (branches) in the Texas panhandle. The southern fork, Prairie Dog Town Fork, is formed in Randall County near Canyon, Texas. Prairie Dog Town Fork is formed from the confluence of Palo Duro Creek and Tierra Blanca Creek. The northern branch, North Fork, flows east entering Oklahoma. It then joins the southern branch at the Texas-Oklahoma border, northeast of Vernon, Texas. The Red River flows east, its south bank forming the border between Texas and Oklahoma and a portion of the border between Texas and Arkansas at the northeastern corner of Texas. The Red River flows into Arkansas and turns south at Fulton, Arkansas entering Louisiana near Ida. In Louisiana the Red River forms the boundary between Caddo and Bossier parishes and flows southeast, through Red River, Natchitoches, Rapides, and Avoyelles parishes to join a partial outflow from the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya River.

Where does the Red River end?
The Red River ends in Louisiana where it empties into the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya. More specifically, the Red River ends as water from an outflow channel from the Mississippi River joins the Red River and flows into the Atchafalaya River near Simmesport, Louisiana. Water flowing from the Mississippi River into this outflow is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Old River Control Structure. The water from the Atchafalaya River flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Sediment deposited forms the Atchafalaya Delta.
http://www.lsus.edu/offices-and-services/community-outreach/red-river-watershed-management-institute/about-the-basin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_of_the_South


39 posted on 12/17/2012 7:29:47 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Are you drunk? You know there’s more than one Red River?


40 posted on 12/17/2012 7:37:50 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

So Cal should get all of it’s water from desalination.


41 posted on 12/17/2012 7:50:50 PM PST by TheDon (In 2012, American voters doubled down on the first affirmative action president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Plus, this is supposed to be a Department of the Interior project. If something like this is afoot in this administration, betcha a box of Twinkies it is for some form of enviro cause.
.................
not necessarily. if the green river basin oil shale is ever to be extracted they’re going to need a lot of water.

and yeah the right place to send the water is out to western Wyoming and over south pass.

a separate line should go to western Colorado to stop and stand and fill the ogalala aquifer


42 posted on 12/17/2012 8:35:59 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Plus, this is supposed to be a Department of the Interior project. If something like this is afoot in this administration, betcha a box of Twinkies it is for some form of enviro cause.
.................
not necessarily. if the green river basin oil shale is ever to be extracted they’re going to need a lot of water.

and yeah the right place to send the water is out to western Wyoming and over south pass.

a separate line should go to western Colorado to stop and stand and fill the ogalala aquifer


43 posted on 12/17/2012 8:36:19 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

If you ever look out from a jet flying to LA across Arizona past Needles California and due west to LA, you’ll notice two things. The first is figures drawn in the desert by ancient Indians combined with tracks made by modern cars. The second big thing you’ll notice is that there is a blue ribbon of water that runs from the Colorado. That’s a canal built to send water to LA from the Colorado river for LA. They may be paying as much as $600@ acre foot for that water these days. I haven’t looked it up lately. LA does get a little desalinized water but precious little. That water is much more expensive.


44 posted on 12/17/2012 8:41:13 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

If you ever look out from a jet flying to LA across Arizona past Needles California and due west to LA, you’ll notice two things. The first is figures drawn in the desert by ancient Indians combined with tracks made by modern cars. The second big thing you’ll notice is that there is a blue ribbon of water that runs from the Colorado. That’s a canal built to send water to LA from the Colorado river for LA. They may be paying as much as $600@ acre foot for that water these days. I haven’t looked it up lately. LA does get a little desalinized water but precious little. That water is much more expensive.


45 posted on 12/17/2012 8:41:29 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DManA

You know there’s more than one Red River?

Sure, there’s more than one Red River. But the one I was referring to runs through the Texas Panhandle. The reason I would not recommend pumping south of the Red River’s juncture with the Missippi is that the Missippi needs the dirt from the Red River to keep the Missippi delta stocked with new dirt. So it doesn’t erode away.


46 posted on 12/17/2012 8:46:02 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
a separate line should go to western Colorado to stop and stand and fill the ogalala aquifer

Western Colorado has no relationship to the Ogalala aquifer, which is chiefly located in Western Nebraska, Western Kansas, the Oklahoma panhandle and West Texas.

47 posted on 12/17/2012 8:46:58 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
The Columbia river should be diverted to the high plains

You want war with Washington and Oregon w/ many major military bases? Go for it. And the Columbia runs nowhere near Seattle.

48 posted on 12/17/2012 9:10:40 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not NurtureĀ™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

What you say is completely logical. I just hope that is what is what they are doing.


49 posted on 12/17/2012 11:45:17 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jrd

“why not start the pipe line from one of the great lakes”

There are treaties with other states and Canada that detail how much water can be removed from the Great Lakes.
At the moment treaty name escapes me ( I am too lazy and dislike google too much) to google the treaty.


50 posted on 12/18/2012 12:02:59 AM PST by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson