Can We Talk About Water?
Why don't we have a national water pipeline?
This Fall's hurricanes drenched the South and the East with billions of gallons of water, water which not only can't we use, but which we don't want. Yet the West, especially the Southwest, thirsts for water, pardon the bad pun. Why don't we have a system of pipelines, similar to our natural gas lines, or our interstate highways, to move this precious and most necessary commodity?
Some quick facts:
Rainfall in the U.S. varies from 59" per year in Louisiana, to about 40" or so in the Northeast, to around 30" per year in the Midwest, to 15" in Colorado and 7" in Nevada and Arizona.
An inch of rain over an acre yields 27,145 gallons of water.
Americans use between 110 to 200 gallons of water per person, per day-- although it can be higher or lower depending on particular circumstances and conservation efforts in a region. (Of course, this includes industrial use, cleaning, sewage, lawns, etc. We don't each drink that much, even on really hot days!)
In areas like Tucson, residents are paying upwards of $7.13 for a "unit" of water, which is approximately 750 gallons, in addition to a basic monthly charge. Residents in a city like Brockport, NY pay less than half of that rate ($3.36 per thousand gallons).
Enough math. Quite simply, there seems to be an abundant supply in the East, a desperate need in the West, and room to "arbitrage" the difference in price between the areas. Not to mention the billions and billions of dollars we spend on water projects throughout the West to harness what little water there is there for human consumption.
The cities in the West, particularly Las Vegas and Phoenix, are booming. Riparian rights, a non-existent issue east of the Mississippi, is a huge issue west of it.
Are there environmental issues? Of course. But the potential benefits make it a worthwhile topic to at least explore. After all, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of water projects underway each year-- they all have environmental consequences. Surely we could collect and divert a substantial amount of water without having an adverse affect on our environment-- most areas in the East don't even recycle their waste water, but merely "clean" it and dump it, often in the ocean. Such a waste.
For a wonderful overview of our current drinking water crisis, see the report appearing on Environmental Health Perspective's site.
Will one of the candidates address this issue?
What would a nationwide pipeline mean?
It would mean the end of drought (in all areas-- for instance, the South has had its droughts; so has the Northeast. But usually not at the same time; water could be directed throughout the pipeline system).
It would mean jobs.
It would mean income for Eastern states.
It would mean secure sources of water for farmers.
It could mean votes.
This Fall's hurricanes drenched the South and the East with billions of gallons of water, water which not only can't we use, but which we don't want. Yet the West, especially the Southwest, thirsts for water, pardon the bad pun. Why don't we have a system of pipelines, similar to our natural gas lines, or our interstate highways, to move this precious and most necessary commodity?
Some quick facts:
Rainfall in the U.S. varies from 59" per year in Louisiana, to about 40" or so in the Northeast, to around 30" per year in the Midwest, to 15" in Colorado and 7" in Nevada and Arizona.
An inch of rain over an acre yields 27,145 gallons of water.
Americans use between 110 to 200 gallons of water per person, per day-- although it can be higher or lower depending on particular circumstances and conservation efforts in a region. (Of course, this includes industrial use, cleaning, sewage, lawns, etc. We don't each drink that much, even on really hot days!)
In areas like Tucson, residents are paying upwards of $7.13 for a "unit" of water, which is approximately 750 gallons, in addition to a basic monthly charge. Residents in a city like Brockport, NY pay less than half of that rate ($3.36 per thousand gallons).
Enough math. Quite simply, there seems to be an abundant supply in the East, a desperate need in the West, and room to "arbitrage" the difference in price between the areas. Not to mention the billions and billions of dollars we spend on water projects throughout the West to harness what little water there is there for human consumption.
The cities in the West, particularly Las Vegas and Phoenix, are booming. Riparian rights, a non-existent issue east of the Mississippi, is a huge issue west of it.
Are there environmental issues? Of course. But the potential benefits make it a worthwhile topic to at least explore. After all, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of water projects underway each year-- they all have environmental consequences. Surely we could collect and divert a substantial amount of water without having an adverse affect on our environment-- most areas in the East don't even recycle their waste water, but merely "clean" it and dump it, often in the ocean. Such a waste.
For a wonderful overview of our current drinking water crisis, see the report appearing on Environmental Health Perspective's site.
Will one of the candidates address this issue?
What would a nationwide pipeline mean?
It would mean the end of drought (in all areas-- for instance, the South has had its droughts; so has the Northeast. But usually not at the same time; water could be directed throughout the pipeline system).
It would mean jobs.
It would mean income for Eastern states.
It would mean secure sources of water for farmers.
It could mean votes.
posted by A Red Mind in a Blue State at 11:34 PM
<< Home