Convicted One Based upon discussion of others here in this thread, it appears that the RRs would only have an interest in doing this at an affordable rate, as a filler when their "bread and butter" traffic is depressed. SO, once you are dependant upon it, what happens when the RRs lose interest because other traffic is more lucrative?
Based upon discussion of others here in this thread, it appears that the RRs would only have an interest in doing this at an affordable rate, as a filler when their "bread and butter" traffic is depressed.
SO, once you are dependant upon it, what happens when the RRs lose interest because other traffic is more lucrative?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Canadian Geese are non-indigenous, filthy, disease carrying rats with wings. If they didn't have wings, the cities would have Geese control cars out killing them off like the rat patrols in big cities.
Now as for the water, why is this different from oil? North Dakota sends us trains full of crude. In fact water exporting as a renewable resource has far less impact than non-renewable oil. If you have it; sell it.
I doubt you could find any state that would allow the exporting of their water for purposes such as irrigation or industrial usage.
tree68Municipal water isn't available out here in the sticks, yet.
It appears that you might have missed my intended point. I probably wasn't clear enough, in the interest of brevity.
The original linked article states that the party behind all this wanted to pump so much water ANNUALLY. This to me implies that their interest was not toward "drought relief", but rather to become an ongoing concern.
They wanted to find a niche, and serve it. So, I expect this niche would in some way be to fuel developement in a location where currently a scarcity of water curbs that ambition? Maybe I'm assuming too much, but that is the picture in my minds eye when I read their story.
And I'll be darned if I would buy into any such scheme where water had that requirement built in. Even barring residential, I really doubt that any industry that requires water as part of it's process would want to build a new factory where WBR was their primary source.
The railroad decides to get greedy later, and look at your alternatives. Plus you own a building where no one else wants to locate because of the very same problem, so good luck selling it.
Side note tangent: There are so many beautiful places out in the middle of nowhere in Utah where I'd love to build a house some day...except reality is that those out of the way places are undeveloped for a reason. People there tend to cluster around towns with the word "springs" and "wells" as part of the name for a reason. Build a cistern and wait and wait for rain?
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.
petitnjNow as for the water, why is this different from oil?
If you are exporting oil and the well runs dry, you go into another business. If you are exporting water and the well runs dry, neighbors start showing up at your door with torches and pitchforks.
Convicted OneIf you are exporting oil and the well runs dry, you go into another business. If you are exporting water and the well runs dry, neighbors start showing up at your door with torches and pitchforks.
We've had something similar happen here when new municipal wells are drilled, resulting in the existing residential wells going dry or being greatly reduced in capacity.
It happened between my house and my neighbor when my well was drilled - well before I moved into the house. The neighbor's well level dropped 10 feet or more.
Some years ago, the dam at a local paper mill went out - and wells in the area went with it.
Under the Texas Panhandle, I'm told there is a huge basin that holds water. I visited a friend in that area some years ago. Her father had pulled up a well casing that had extended a couple hundred feet. He showed me where the water had been, and where it was now - substantially lower. And that was just water being used for irrigation.
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...
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Instead of SP's Oil Cans could we see UP's Water Bottle trains? :)
rdamon Instead of SP's Oil Cans could we see UP's Water Bottle trains? :)
They'd have to be recyclable, and no plastic straws!
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.
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.
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
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?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Euclid I doubt you could find any state that would allow the exporting of their water for purposes such as irrigation or industrial usage.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.