Trains.com

BNSF pioneers drinking water by rail

4443 views
31 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, June 10, 2024 10:13 AM

tree68

 

 
Euclid
Instead it will be in ways to lower water consumption. 

 

In terms of the original post - most of us would probably have a problem living with the very real restrictions they live with daily.  

Niagara Falls, which handles the outflow from all the Great Lakes above it, moves a lot of water:

 

 
During the summer and fall, Niagara Falls can flow at more than 700,000 gallons per second. During peak daytime tourist hours, the Horseshoe Falls can flow at 6 million cubic feet per second, which is about a million bathtubs full of water every minute.

 

The flow over the falls varies by season and time of day, as governed by a treaty.  This is largely due to tourism.  Seasonal flows notwithstanding, water not going over the falls is generating electricity.

Currently, the Niagara River is flowing at around 240,000 cubic feet per second, or nearly 2 million gallons per second.

The average daily water usage ranges from 50 to 200 gallons per person on a national basis.

 

I understand the point of the first post, and I agree that more water is needed in the cited area.  In my first post, I asked, “Will regulations allow this plan to go forward?”
 
I was informed here that no regulations apply, and the plan is a done deal.  I posted a link to same type of plan being shot down by the use of regulations in Minnesota a few years ago.   
 
Yes, I know there is a lot of water.  My point has nothing to do with that fact.  Instead, it has to do with the alarms being raised about running out of water.  We are told that 7 states are in the danger zone and several more are on the brink.  Maybe the problem is being exaggerated for some reason.  I am only citing the danger and motive of that exaggeration.   
 
Here is another take on Water-By-Rail:
 
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Monday, June 10, 2024 9:11 PM

Euclid
The following from the link I posted above and other embedded link(s) make all of the points I have suggested about possible opposition to this new plan for New Mexico imported water.  So I don’t understand your point about this only being about private wells and not pertinent to the plan for New Mexico. 
 
From the link:
 
“Last week came the surprising news that a company in Lakeville, Minn., wants to pump water from below the ground in Dakota County and transport it by rail to the western United States, where water is scarce."
 
Environmental groups quickly opposed the idea. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said the plan likely won't meet state law.”
 
With this Minnesota proposal, it sounds identical to what is being proposed for NM, and also demonstrates plenty of public opposition, and regulations. 
 
If the water authority here were to sell to other states, and bring in revenue to lower our rates, fine.  But it would also give them a motive to raise our rates on a premise that water is in short supply, and so we all need to chip in and pay a little more.
 
If such a proposal came up here, I would immediately oppose it.  The water rates here are rising all the time, along with sewer, electricity, and gas.
 

I'm not saying this is only about private wells, but the article you linked was about private wells. The state had doubts about the approval of the project because of the specific aquifer. The article also says Minnesota has no absolute prohibitions against export of water. So there are a number of differences between this and the Mississippi case. But of course a similarity with the two cases is some public opposition. Because groundwater is so connected to surface water, I also believe there should be more regulation of groundwater. But whereas surface water is recognized as a public trust, groundwater is often considered a property right, and regulation gets pushback from farmers, industry, and property rights groups.

Municipal water authorities have a hard enough time getting water rates approved to cover their cost of operation. It seems implausible that a city council would tell it's voting citizens that they are approving a water rate hike above costs just because they think it is in demand.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy