Does it have the same “excess” overflow that could quickly fill Lake Mead without disrupting water usage in Missouri and downstream? It seems the idea in the article would be win-win.
There are several lakes along the Missouri. Fort Peck lake in Montana would seem like a source for the water for this idea. It might not be able to refill Lake Mead in a year but it would do so eventually. Fort Peck Lake - Wikipedia
Some solution will - must be - found, don’t you think, to avoid disaster in the west? Look at Vegas or Palm Springs, as just two examples. Such water waste has to stop. Perhaps rationing is a solution. The frustrating thing is this was foreseeable 50 years ago, but the global warming deniers in Congress kept kicking the can down the road.
I don’t and never said it was THE option. Like most complicated problems, a multifaceted approach will be necessary. The Colorado River and Lake Mead are important not just for California either.
Bad leadership ='s bad or no solutions to problems Here is what strong leadership does : Here is what private industry does to solve problems: These are just two examples to help solve real problems that affect everyone. The problem with the leadership in CA is they are more concerned with Pride month than they are creating solutions that help every man, woman and child in their state. It's the greatest real estate in the world that is managed by people with zero common sense that want to blame everything on uncontrollable circumstances. That's a losers mentality.
I would tend to agree with the whacked out priorities assessment. Just about anything you could dream up would be a better option than diverting water from the mississippi river.
Then there’s this: A Disturbing Process Has Been Accelerating in Freshwater Lakes Worldwide, Study Finds Politics ought to be put aside.
Vertical farming is a good idea. The rest of your post is bullshit. California is way ahead of the rest of the country in many ways, but it does have issues that confront every state. Gay Pride, which seems to threaten you in some odd way, isn’t one of them.
Good for the south. But you're cherry picking. Where do many southern states rank with respect to, for example, education? Where does Texas rank with respect to mental health services? My obvious point is that each state can improve what it does for its citizens with their tax dollars. Why must you politicize everything and point your finger at California and mention gay pride? I know you're young and inexperienced, but you can do better than that.
There would be less of a fight for the Mississippi's water. And you can pretend that you are saving the places near the river from flooding (except that they'll be taking water year-round). You're rescuing the Southern rednecks from themselves. People who live near the Missouri River would notice the water theft a lot quicker than people near the Mississippi.
I mention gay pride because it takes precedence over things like wild fires, homelessness and the overall wellness of the middle class. The politicians spend more time virtue signaling than fixing problems. Safety and affordability are what matter to people. The people who manage the state should be able create a safe, clean, and affordable place to live with the obscene amount of taxes they collect. I could post 1,000 articles on the reasons people are leaving the state they love. The NY Post article is very telling. Who in their right mind would leave Carmel? Why are People Leaving California? 8 Reasons + Celebrities Former residents reveal 'why we left California for good' Companies are bailing. Born & raised are bailing. The middle class has to bail. It's a shame that such a cool piece of land is run by morons.
Seems that the cost for pumps, pipes, tunnels under the Rockies and aqueducts would be much more than the cost for desalinization plants in California. Could maybe run the plants via solar energy?
Only part of the issue is money. The other part is environmental concerns. California would have to sacrifice a mile or two of coastline for a major desal plant, which would be hideously industrial-looking and unfriendly to all aquatic species in the immediate area. But I think that money is the major part of the argument. The rest of the nation would be less interested in funding a project that is fully contained within California's borders. A massive project that spanned several states that would involve construction projects in each of those states might persuade Congress to loosen the purse strings and have the federal government pay most of the cost, even though our wealthiest state is the primary beneficiary of federal charity in this case.
