enA couple of decades ago, Green Bay, WI, was looking to run a pipeline east to Lake Michigan to suppliment their original one (which was put in place due to depleted groundwater). The intake crib was located off Kewaunee and at the time I thought shipping it by rail would be a great way to save the old GB&W line. As matters turned out, the 'burbs decided to go their own way, and wanted their own access to the lake. Instead of drawing from Kewaunee, they negotiaited a deal with the lakefront city of Manitowoc, whose water utility had lost their largest industrial user (Mirro Aluminum) and had the spare capacity ready to go. That could have saved the C&NW's former Lake Shore line...but, alas, neither 'twas meant to be. A pipeline went in, and much of both railbeds are now trails.
One argument about the Atlanta area water is that Florida had seafood business that was based on a steady water supply from the hooch. That actually became available most years due to the various dams and lakes. Guess what? before the dams the flows were so different at various times of the year that the Florida business could never have survived. Where that argument went who knows ?
samfp1943 Juniata Man Mudchicken: The situation you note in Colorado is similar to one going on here in the Southeast where, for years now, Alabama and Florida have been contesting the amount of water metropolitan Atlanta/ north Georgia draws from the Chattahoochee and Etowah River basins. Georgia has won the legal proceedings to this point but; as long as there are at least two lawyers alive, I doubt the issue will be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Back at the 'Turn of the Century{2000!]".. I was a resident of Georgia, I learned some, interesting to me, local facts on a number of issues, particularly,Water. I learned that at that time, all the drinking water in Georgia, inclusive of Hot-Lanta, and most of the other urban areas; drew their drinking water from various impoundments, and some rivers. The number of water well was very limited...All becuse of soemthing called the Appalachian Massif; which underay most of the state. So what drinking water was available was gathered from resevoirs, and some rivers. Also, was the fact, that there were no rivers that 'rose' outside of of the State, and all flowed out of the State. Which was an unusual circumstance. In Georgia all the available water resources, fell as rain water, and were either captured in various impoundments, or just flowed outward.... My guess, is that the situation just described, has probably, changed very little?
Juniata Man Mudchicken: The situation you note in Colorado is similar to one going on here in the Southeast where, for years now, Alabama and Florida have been contesting the amount of water metropolitan Atlanta/ north Georgia draws from the Chattahoochee and Etowah River basins. Georgia has won the legal proceedings to this point but; as long as there are at least two lawyers alive, I doubt the issue will be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
Mudchicken:
The situation you note in Colorado is similar to one going on here in the Southeast where, for years now, Alabama and Florida have been contesting the amount of water metropolitan Atlanta/ north Georgia draws from the Chattahoochee and Etowah River basins. Georgia has won the legal proceedings to this point but; as long as there are at least two lawyers alive, I doubt the issue will be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
Back at the 'Turn of the Century{2000!]".. I was a resident of Georgia, I learned some, interesting to me, local facts on a number of issues, particularly,Water. I learned that at that time, all the drinking water in Georgia, inclusive of Hot-Lanta, and most of the other urban areas; drew their drinking water from various impoundments, and some rivers. The number of water well was very limited...All becuse of soemthing called the Appalachian Massif; which underay most of the state. So what drinking water was available was gathered from resevoirs, and some rivers.
Also, was the fact, that there were no rivers that 'rose' outside of of the State, and all flowed out of the State. Which was an unusual circumstance. In Georgia all the available water resources, fell as rain water, and were either captured in various impoundments, or just flowed outward....
My guess, is that the situation just described, has probably, changed very little?
That is a common misbelief. Although most water in the metro area was/is drawn from rivers, wells have been and continue to be used.
https://www2.usgs.gov/water/southatlantic/ga/publications/ggs/ic-63/
I imagine there's a heck of a lot of bottled drinking water shipped into the drier climes. I think it'd be wiser to let market forces determine what can be supported. Let the desert be desert, the semiarid be semiarid. Otherwise it's a house of cards destined to crash. Just like trying to contain the Mississippi River has screwed up the Delta region. Should have let it find its new course with the Atchafalaya.
And as long as the gauges at lake Lanier function correctly ...
Still the same. Drinking water for Atlanta and Gwinnett County comes from the Hooch and Lake Lanier. For the northwest suburbs water comes from Lake Allatoona.
Back during the big drought in 2007; there was some talk of building a pipeline to tap into the Tennessee River.
Apparently there is a centuries old surveying error that moved the Georgia / Tennessee line about a mile or so south of where it should have been established. Georgia's thinking in 2007 was to sue Tennessee in Federal court to have the rightful border established which would have placed the state line on the Tennessee River - thus giving Georgia access to that water source.
The rains finally came and nothing really resulted from it but; I've no doubt the next time we're in the grip of a drought, the idea will be pulled from the closet, dusted off and placed on the table for discussion.
mudchickenGo anywhere in the Lower Arkansas Valley in Colorado and state you are from Aurora, CO (eastern Denver burbs) ....Make sure to have your last will and testimony plus life insurance in place. They've been moving water around since the Kennedy administration on what is locally referred to as "the BIG straw" .... Water law is one of the most convoluted things you will ever encounter, especially when urban and rural/ag interests are pitted against each other.
They've been moving water around since the Kennedy administration on what is locally referred to as "the BIG straw" .... Water law is one of the most convoluted things you will ever encounter, especially when urban and rural/ag interests are pitted against each other.
Back about 20 - 25 years ago Coors/ Golden, CO was floating () a proposal to use recycled wastewater. As I vaguely recall, the people or drainage district downstream of the STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) objected becasue it would have diverted their water, and won.
Different case, but another example of how crazy this can get:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/25/colorado-supreme-court-coors-water-right/
My daughter used to live in Arvada, CO right next to the BNSF line to Coors. As I recall it was a train a day each way, maybe 40 cars. But that was Thanksgiving weekend 2007, which might not have been typical. She did say the train crews liked it when she and her friends would wave to them - "That's what you're supposed to do!"
- PDN.
NKP guyAn enormous amount of water from the Great Lakes could be taken from the St. Lawrence River at any point east of Massena, NY and never be missed. All water from that point east is simply destined to become yet more salt water.
As I understand it, for the last 40 years or more, the Colorado River no longer feeds into the Pacific. So much water is drained out of it by different users that it dries up some miles short of the sea.
One thing about Midwest / Minnesota water that I don't think has been brought up is Ethanol. Most likely, we're at the peak of world oil production about now; as about half of the world's oil - the half closest to the surface, easiest to get at and process due to it's location, etc. - has already been used. That means in future Ethanol will be more important. The Upper Midwest grows corn and other plants that can be made into Ethanol, but producing it takes huge quantities of water.
An enormous amount of water from the Great Lakes could be taken from the St. Lawrence River at any point east of Massena, NY and never be missed. All water from that point east is simply destined to become yet more salt water. And does anyone think ocean levels would drop dangerously as a result? Or become more salty? Or that Montreal would become landlocked?
This water could easily be sent via pipe line, not railroad car, to any place in the USA that needs it and would be willing to pay for it (southern California? Arizona? Las Vegas? I'm looking at you). Question: How great is the need, really?
Of course, the federal government would have to be responsible for a project this big and that alone dooms the idea in the mind of many. After all, MAGA hats notwithstanding, this is no longer the country of big ideas and great engineering feats. We can't even get construction started on the biggest infrastructure problem facing our country, the Hudson & East River tunnels, to say nothing of a new bridge over the river at Detroit, etc.
I'm not advocating such a project. I'm simply saying it, like so many other needed infrastructure projects, could be done if the political will, imagination, and investment were there. After all, when will interest rates ever be much cheaper?
Murphy SidingIn the early 80's a company called Energy Transportation Systems Incorporated was trying to build a coal slurry pipeline. The plan was to use water from the Missouri River in South Dakota to mix with pulverized coal dust to pump through a pipeline to power plants in Arkansas. Boy, did that cause some legal and political battles.
That brought back some old memories, I worked on that case in the mid-eighties, for a company that took legal documents and records and created a computer database that could be used by the clients to more easily retrieve what they needed. (Computers didn't have enough memory then to just digitalize the whole million pages or so!).
I think as much as anything the Iran-Iraq War kinda sealed ETSI's fate. When it was first proposed after the Arab Oil Embargo, coal was a cheaper alternative to petroleum, and the pipeline might have worked. When the Iran-Iraq war started in 1979, each country initially destroyed each other's oil pipeline and shipping ability, causing a shortage of oil worldwide that caused a deep recession in the early eighties.
By about 1984, both countries had worked out ways to ship out it's oil again, and were both selling oil below the OPEC recommeded price so they could get more money for armaments to fight each other with. This caused the price of oil to drop, and make unit-trains of coal that much better a deal.
But there was a lot going on with ETSI of course:
https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/coal-slurry-idea-came-and-went
Euclid I doubt you could find any state that would allow the exporting of their water for purposes such as irrigation or industrial usage.
I doubt you could find any state that would allow the exporting of their water for purposes such as irrigation or industrial usage.
At one time the SP delivered potable water to Coalinga in California's Central Valley. The local water contained a high concentration of magnesium sulfate and we know what this does to you. Most homes had three faucets in the kitchen: hot, cold, and drinking. Do not know what the current water supply situation is in Coalinga. The SP has abandoned part of the line to Coalinga.
Convicted One Murphy Siding find the people with too much water and send that down the pike. Actually, I think that IS part of the problem. As Balt correctly points out, the major aquifers are not recharging fast enough. I think this is due, in no small part, to the way our society has prioritized drainage as fast as can be done. Runnoff.....collect it, channel it, dump it into whatever stream will carry it away the quickest, and make it somebody elses (downstream) problem. I'm a big proponent of rain gardens, and wetland restoration. And while not quite a misanthrope, I do sincerely believe that much of what was done in the past to make a quick buck was anything but "progress". The destruction of the Grand Kankakee Marsh, for example. So much was lost just so that a few could hustle a buck.
Murphy Siding find the people with too much water and send that down the pike.
Actually, I think that IS part of the problem.
As Balt correctly points out, the major aquifers are not recharging fast enough.
I think this is due, in no small part, to the way our society has prioritized drainage as fast as can be done. Runnoff.....collect it, channel it, dump it into whatever stream will carry it away the quickest, and make it somebody elses (downstream) problem.
I'm a big proponent of rain gardens, and wetland restoration.
And while not quite a misanthrope, I do sincerely believe that much of what was done in the past to make a quick buck was anything but "progress".
The destruction of the Grand Kankakee Marsh, for example. So much was lost just so that a few could hustle a buck.
Additionally, all our 'flood control' projects have the effect of making the rivers they were built to harness into narrower higher velocity 'water jets' that make downstream communities more at risk of flooding with every passing day.
The Mississippi Delta that has been the protection for the New Orleans area is being scoured away from the higher velocity of the Mississippi and it becomes less of a barrier to hurricane damage at time goes on.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One .......So much more development now, asphalt parking lots, sub divisions where there used to be farmers fields, even farmers fields are much better drained now than they used to be. Not to mention small streams out under county roads, that years ago flowed through a 4 or 6 foot culvert, now flow under cement multi span bridges built to accomodate maximum run-off. It all adds up....everybody upstreams water gets to me much faster than it used to.....and if it can't expand outwards it has only one direction to go... I guess we are really fortunate having sufficient water that we can take it for granted.
.......So much more development now, asphalt parking lots, sub divisions where there used to be farmers fields, even farmers fields are much better drained now than they used to be. Not to mention small streams out under county roads, that years ago flowed through a 4 or 6 foot culvert, now flow under cement multi span bridges built to accomodate maximum run-off.
It all adds up....everybody upstreams water gets to me much faster than it used to.....and if it can't expand outwards it has only one direction to go...
I guess we are really fortunate having sufficient water that we can take it for granted.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68You must live along Lake Ontario or the St Lawrence River...
I'm a considerable ways upstream, but I'm seeing pretty much the same thing here.
The normal regulated water level behind my house is about 739 ft above sea level (regulated by a downstream weir). Back step to my house is around 764 ft.
50 years ago, the heaviest rainstorm you can imagine would bring the level up 6-8 feet. Nowadays I see that 2-3 times per year, out of storms not half as severe.
Highest I've seen it runs around 19 ft above the normal level.
So much more development now, asphalt parking lots, sub divisions where there used to be farmers fields, even farmers fields are much better drained now than they used to be. Not to mention small streams out under county roads, that years ago flowed through a 4 or 6 foot culvert, now flow under cement multi span bridges built to accomodate maximum run-off.
I wonder about the environmental impact of transferring water without some sort of treatment. What microorganisms or minerals might be introduced at the destination that would damage the balance of nature there.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Convicted OnePredictably, they found some federal program to milk where money is made available to buy these houses at market value, 10-20 houses per year. the only stipulation being that the land must be returned to natural habitat, forever off the shelf for development.
You must live along Lake Ontario or the St Lawrence River...
The current plan for management of lake and river levels was heavily influenced by environmentalists who have said, in so many words, that this is the new normal. There has been lakeshore and rivershore flooding for two of the past three years (coincidentally, since the new plan was put into effect). While some blame can be placed on higher than normal rainfalls, some portion can still be laid to the new management plan.
I am completely convinced that their goal is to get all waterfront development (cottages, mainly) rendered unusable so the land can be returned to nature.
They've also called for ending the shipping season early - I doubt they like those big ships running up and down their river...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy SidingThen the losers in this equation could scream for open access on the railroads,
You and I are thinking along very similar lines.
What I would expect is that those receiving the water would soon see it as an entitlement.....not to mention "a matter of life and death"
Anything that might disrupt their subsequent pursuit of happiness (sarcasm), would cast them in the role of victims.....and they no doubt would feel the taxpayers owed them salvation.
Where I live we have exactly the opposite problem, due to a host of factors the spring floods around my town keep getting worse than ever before.
So houses that were built in questionable areas even back in the 1940s, are now routinely getting a good flood every few years.
Predictably, they found some federal program to milk where money is made available to buy these houses at market value, 10-20 houses per year. the only stipulation being that the land must be returned to natural habitat, forever off the shelf for development.
I don't have to stretch my imagination very far to envision the same "save me-save me" mentality among WBR customers once the RR started hiking the price
BaltACDMy understanding is that we are using the existing aquifers well in excess of their recharge rate - TODAY!
I believe that's true for many areas.
My state strictly enforces usage of aquifer water. Wells, including irrigation wells, have monitoring meters on them.
Years ago, the state made a line for the level of the aquifer water, and if the level drops below that historic line, irrigation well usage is cut back. The drilling of new wells is strictly managed, and old wells are required to be sealed so that contaminants cannot enter the aquifer.
Over the past years, our aquifer level has actually increased.
Water is gold in farm country. If someone was to suggest we sell water to some other part of the country ...
York1 John
I'd think the EPA would be well involved too, on both ends... removing the water is one regulatory hurdle to overcome, but what about discharging untreated water from one area into another... what kinds of mineral and biological material might get transferred with the water? What might that do to the biology at the receiving end?
EuclidAnd from a political standpoint, the last thing any politician wants to face is the perception that their state is experiencing a water shortage because they sold their water to some other state. So this will never be done on a private enterprise basis.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for
I've been told by several educated types in years past that the next round of wars will be fought over water, and not oil.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Convicted One Murphy Siding If the customers don't like it, they can find a different way to get the water. Well, it's reassuring to see that not everyone missed my intended point.
Murphy Siding If the customers don't like it, they can find a different way to get the water.
Well, it's reassuring to see that not everyone missed my intended point.
BaltACD My understanding is that we are using the existing aquifers well in excess of their recharge rate - TODAY! Let alone pumping the aquifers to move the water to locations where their own water systems are inadequate. Railroads hauling the water is no problem. The politics of it all is a BIG PROBLEM.
My understanding is that we are using the existing aquifers well in excess of their recharge rate - TODAY! Let alone pumping the aquifers to move the water to locations where their own water systems are inadequate.
Railroads hauling the water is no problem. The politics of it all is a BIG PROBLEM.
rdamon Instead of SP's Oil Cans could we see UP's Water Bottle trains? :)
Instead of SP's Oil Cans could we see UP's Water Bottle trains? :)
They'd have to be recyclable, and no plastic straws!
Just to supplement my earlier post, but If I lived in Drygulch Arizona and had to truck domestic water in , I suspect that I would hate myself everytime I flushed the toilet....unless I was obscenely wealthy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.