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 ...
Denver is the NEW Los Angeles when it comes to water THEFT!
How ‘bout NO ?
Ping.
Oh I get it..kinda like spreading the wealth around! It’s only fair.
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.
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.
Shovel ready jobs?
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.
I can’t wait to see the EPA shrieking to the front of the line with handfuls of impact studies a la Keystone XL.
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.
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?
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.
Control the water, control everything.
FMCDH(BITS)
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?
“who in the hell is going to pay for this?”
Well, as an Arizona boy, I’d recommend...Arizona & Colorado & California.
why not start the pipe line from one of the great lakes
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.
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.