1. The non-native plant species Tamarisk has been estimated to suck enough water out of western rivers to supply 20 million people.

2. A huge percentage of western water usage is taxpayer subsidized water sold at pennies on the dollar, and used to grow corn for cattle feed. By eliminating those subsidies, there would be a lot more water available for people and beef consumers would start paying a fair price for what they are eating – instead of passing the cost on to other taxpayers.

The discharge point of NEWTAP would be chosen from several candidates, as I am sure there are many who would oppose any option.

The environmentalists will, as you suggest, be very opposed to this, as they are to everything.

But the limited water, and population growth in California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico all point to the need for additional fresh water.

When the need is sufficient, the water will be found. It may be from recycling toilet to tap, (eww….gross!), or desalination for California (but not for the other non-coastal states), or a gravity-driven aqueduct from British Columbia to California that follows the terrain downhill all the way, or towing icebergs from Alaska to Los Angeles. I have read proposals on all of those.

To me, the NEWTAP project makes the most sense. But it will not be easily won.

If (maybe when?) California’s agriculture does disappear due to lack of water, and all food prices in the U.S. jump by a large percent as a result, something will be done. NEWTAP appears to me to be a viable solution.

So what you are discussing is pumping huge amounts of Mississippi River water into the San Juan River? I can imagine all kinds of unpleasant side effects to the environment of the Grand Canyon bringing warm, polluted Mississippi water full of non-indigenous species into the region. Plus Arizona would probably just keep the water for themselves. ;^)

I can’t see environmentalists letting this happen.

“That wouldn’t do Los Angeles, the San Joaquin valley and points north any good at all. The Colorado River Aqueduct and All American Canal, which feed from the Colorado River, supply water to Southern California south of Los Angeles, not LA or the San Joaquin.”

I believe it would have great benefit. The benefit derives from using the additional Colorado River water in Southern California, and not having to pump water from Northern California over the Tehachapi mountains into Los Angeles. Also, the Colorado River aqueduct terminates in Lake Matthews, from which many water districts obtain water. That includes Los Angeles.

The water from Northern California would then be used as required for agriculture in the San Joaquin valley.

Here is a good article with photos.

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/LowerColorado.pdf

@Jack Simmons (03:21:53) :

“Why hasn’t California built desalination plants?”

Environmental obstructionism is the primary reason. Also, just about the time the droughts get serious, we have sufficient snow and rain so that the problem “goes away” for a year or two.

http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/california-water-shortage-drought-in.html

@Steven Goddard (06:07:18) :

“Roger Sowell,

So what you are suggesting as a solution for California would probably become the basis of a water war with the Rocky Mountain states.”

Steven, I concur that there could be serious battles over water, which is why this NEWTAP project must have federal backing. Even then, the rights to water would be the basis for arguing and lawsuits.

And, you are correct that the Colorado River itself does not flow through New Mexico. However, tributaries do, and one of those is where the NEWTAP aqueduct would terminate.

They should look pretty healthy too. Ditto the Atlas mountains and the northern Algerian mountains.

The poor old Murray-Darling is still suffering though. Bad news there. They need what California’s just had to make it back to normality.

The Colorado River doesn’t run through New Mexico. Water is currently pumped the other direction, from west to east, across the Continental Divide to supply the Front Range.

So what you are suggesting as a solution for California would probably become the basis of a water war with the Rocky Mountain states.

Wouldn’t these be wonderful infrastructure projects providing jobs for thousands while fixing a major problem for California?

Just wondering.

“California needs to admit it is no longer prudent nor possible to rely on rain or snow, and to convince the federal government to devote money to the National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project, NEWTAP. This would use wind-power to pump river water from the Missouri and Mississippi uphill into the Colorado river in New Mexico.”

That wouldn’t do Los Angeles, the San Joaquin valley and points north any good at all. The Colorado River Aqueduct and All American Canal, which feed from the Colorado River, supply water to Southern California south of Los Angeles, not LA or the San Joaquin. The biggest user of water by far in CA is agriculture in the San Joaquin, where the cheap water supply has allowed it to become the most important agricultural region in the country. Agriculture is the real reason behind California’s prosperity. If the water in Northern California dries up, so does the San Joaquin and so does California’s prosperity.

My suggestion would be to pump down Lake Tahoe water. We can live without ski bunnies, but can’t live without food.

http://www.foothill.net/~andreaj/Bridge.htm

Auburn dam was never a water storage project – it was a proposed flood control structure. Auburn was to be immediately above Folsom, and Folsom Dam already functions as water storage on the American. The increased water yield from the American River watershed if Auburn were built, above what is already available from Folsom, would have been less than 100,000 AF annually.

Auburn would be a 2 million AF pond – but its management would be coupled to that of Folsom, immediately downstream, and there is only so much water to store from the American River system.

The reason Auburn was abandoned is nearly purely economics. Originally, Auburn was going to be a concrete arch dam, 800 feet high (!!), nearly 3/4 of a mile in crest length, containing over 6 million yards of concrete – the largest arch dam in the world. It was justified purely as a flood control structure, because of the potential for a major American River flood to overtop Folsom and threaten Sacramento. That’s a lot of dam for 100,000 AF of annual water storage yield.

During construction substantial faulting at the dam site was discovered, with the potential for fault slippage of over 12 inches across the dam foundation, and the arch dam design had to be abandoned because it would not withstand dam-site fault slippage – and a potential failure of 2 million acre feet of impoundment immediately upstream of Folsom, causing it to fail, and dumping all together nearly 4 million acre feet of water into downtown Sacramento, was not acceptable .

Auburn Dam was redesigned as a gravity dam – but the cost of the redesigned gravity dam was prohibitive, several times again as expensive as the original arch dam design.

Currently plans are in place to raise Folsom by 7-8 feet, and improve the outlet works to allow greater drawdown to prepare for flood season and greater bypass during peak floods to reduce the risk of overtopping. This will cost much, much less than Auburn Dam would have – probably by tens of billions of dollars – and will actually create as much increased water storage yield, perhaps more, than Auburn would have. Still the increase in yield will only be on the order of 100,000 AF – negligible in the overall picture of CA water storage.

I can see already from looking at the graph that 2009 melt is not going to surpass 2008 melt. So multiyear ice is going to continue growing–I think ;)

caveat–Martians “laser” the North Pole and it melts faster

I knew someone would say this.

I didn’t mean all people. A percentage of people could have wells. This would solve the whole problem of overuse.

“Reporting from Sacramento — Use it or lose it is the rule of California water rights, and after 43 years, the would-be Auburn Dam — subject of one of the state’s bitterest water feuds — is about to lose it.

The proposed plug on the gold-sprinkled American River northeast of Sacramento has been declared dead many times since Congress authorized it in 1965, and there may be no reviving it now. The state is poised to take back the legal right it granted to the federal government to store water behind the dam. Without that right, the federal government cannot build a reservoir, and the state has never been inclined to build one itself.”

who did che chu-z?