More

Moving Water From Flood To Drought

Drought

By SETH BORENSTEIN   09/ 9/11 06:45 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- As the soggy East tries to dry out from flooding and Texas prays for rain that doesn't come, you might ask: Isn't there some way to ship all that water from here to there?

It's an idea that has tempted some, but reality gets in the way.

A Texas oilman once envisioned long pipelines carrying water to drought-stricken Texas cities, just one of several untested fantasies of moving water vast distances. Parched Las Vegas still wants to indirectly siphon off excess water from the overflowing Mississippi River. French engineers have simulated hauling an iceberg to barren Africa. There are even mega-trash bags to move heavy loads of water.

There's certainly plenty of rainwater available. Tropical Storm Lee dumped enough on the already saturated Mid-Atlantic, Northeast and Gulf Coast to bring 9.6 inches of rain across the entire state of Texas, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Associated Press.

"One man's flood control is another man's water supply," said Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. "Doesn't it make you want to think about a larger distribution that helps both? That's the crazy part of this. It's a win-win. There's no loser."

But moving vast quantities of water is not simple or cheap, and thus not realistic, experts say. Mostly, it's too costly and political.

However, these dreamed-up concepts show that a quiet water crisis is getting more desperate.

"We will go to any lengths to avoid confronting the reality of water shortages," said University of Arizona law professor Robert Glennon, author of the book "Unquenchable."

"What all those zany ideas suggest are the traditional beliefs that we can control nature and there must be some oasis out there where we can go to, to import water."

But those are mirages, he said – tempting, but not realistic.

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, knows the temptation. He's about to fly from Washington, which has had 7 inches since Monday, to Houston, which got about that amount of rain for the entire spring and summer. All that D.C. rain would be enough water for every person in Houston for 10 days.

He jested that he would love to carry water in his suitcases. He said colleagues have been "joking that we'll send Texas our water. Will they send us their oil? But I don't think that's going to fly."

The trouble with water is "there's enough quantity but it is not always in the right places," said G. Tracy Mehan, who was chief water regulator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration during the George W. Bush Administration.

So how about moving it?

"The short answer ... is that it costs too much. It's not a technical problem," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Studies Institute and a MacArthur genius grant recipient for his work on water.

Las Vegas' grand proposal is to take water from the mighty Mississippi in a series of smaller pipeline-like exchanges among states just west of the Mississippi to refill the overused Colorado River. There are no official cost estimates, but it likely would be in the hundreds of billions dollars. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens abandoned his plans for a massive water pipeline stretching across Texas to just moving water around the Texas Panhandle.

Water weighs a lot – about 8.3 pounds per gallon – so moving massive amounts, often up mountains, costs a lot, Glennon said. Gleick notes that conservation and efficiency are cheaper.

Building a pipeline to pump water from flooded areas is foolish because each year it is somewhere different that gets drenched, so you can't build something permanent based on a couple of years' unusual rainy weather, NOAA's Halpert said.

For purely moving water, Gleick likes a smaller-scale concept: the trash bag. A California firm has designed Spragg Bags "with the world's strongest zippers" that haul millions of gallons of drinking water from one place to another over the ocean, said inventor Terry Spragg. It's been used in Greece.

When asked the cost to haul excess water by bag from the flooded Northeast to Texas, Spragg declined to say. "It just wouldn't be practical. It's just too distant... Forget about taking it from New Jersey or Pennsylvania, there are sources that are closer."

If you want to go high-tech for water, desalination – taking salt out of ocean water – and reusing wastewater for drinking water are cheaper and more realistic, said Gleick, author of the book "Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water."

In Big Spring, Texas, they are looking at reusing wastewater by treating it and then adding it to the fresh water supply. Orange County, Calif., has a state-of-the-art water recycling program. And on the International Space Station astronauts use a system that turns their urine into drinkable water. Tampa has a new $158 million water desalination plant that can produce as much as 25 million gallons of water a day from the sea.

While those who need more water say the challenge is just a matter of balancing out too much and too little, other experts say there is a bigger problem: 1 billion people on Earth don't have clean drinking water.

"Absolutely there's a water crisis, but it means different things in different places," Gleick said. "In Africa, it's people dying because they don't have safe drinking water. In Texas, it means people at risk and property being damaged because there's a natural drought. In some places, it might mean not enough water to make semiconductors and grow food.

"Nature always distributes water unevenly – that's just the way it goes," Gleick said.

In the 20th century in the United States, the answer to water shortages was to drill another well, tap another aquifer, build more dams, divert more rivers and build pipelines, Gleick said. But now "we're running into limits."

Politics is almost as big a barrier as price. Legal battles over water run rampant in U.S. history, especially out West. But now they have gone nationwide, along with shortages. North Carolina has sued South Carolina, Florida has sued Georgia and Alabama, and the Great Lakes states have banded together to fend off water diversions, Glennon said. The Great Lakes region has been in and out of court over water rights for about a century.

"People are concerned about water rights. Even in eastern water-rich states, you don't want to be giving it away," said Robert Holmes, who deals with the problem of too much water. He is the national flood hazard coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey.

University of Colorado natural hazards professor Kathleen Tierney put it more bluntly: "As we say in Colorado, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over."

___

Online:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- As the soggy East tries to dry out from flooding and Texas prays for rain that doesn't come, you might ask: Isn't there some way to ship all that water from here to there? It's an idea ...
WASHINGTON -- As the soggy East tries to dry out from flooding and Texas prays for rain that doesn't come, you might ask: Isn't there some way to ship all that water from here to there? It's an idea ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 66
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
10:23 PM on 09/12/2011
After having read the comments here and having just read Cadillac Desert, which is all about moving water around, I suggest everyone reads it for themselves! Moving billions of gallons of water thousands of miles costs hundreds of billions in infrastructure and takes a staggering amount of expensive electricity. It would mean people's water bills would go up probably a few hundred percent or more. People currently paying $50 or $100 a year for water would have to start paying thousands a year. It's really VERY expensive.

The problem began by encouraging people to move into the desert. We turned the natives off their land, massacred all the buffalo, and built thousands of dams which flooded thousands of miles of good land and forests. It was meant to help single farmers get water to irrigate but ended up with a handful of corporations getting most of the water.

And now we're in BIG trouble. Even Miss Alabama could figure this out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Pass The Pakalolo
10:08 AM on 09/22/2011
'' It was meant to help single farmers get water to irrigate but ended up with a handful of corporations getting most of the water.''
------------------------------------
It was ostensibly meant to help single farmers get water to irrigate but really meant for a handful of corporations getting most of the water. Salesmanship.. it works every time!
03:47 PM on 09/12/2011
If there isn't enough water in a location, will Californians still move into it? I'd totally take drought over a bunch of Californians moving into my neighborhood. That's why we keep it so cold in Fairbanks... to keep the Californians out.
05:05 PM on 09/12/2011
but you don't seem to mind the tech they produce
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim NLN
Obama 2012 and beyond!
10:30 AM on 09/12/2011
"Hey, nothing else is working, not even normal prayer" - That is why today, and today only, god is offering to double the worth of your prayers. So, if you live in Texas get down on your hands and knees, close your eyes and pray baby pray. Do not forget to mention the keycode "Methuselah" in your prayer to get this special offer. Pastafarians Unite!
IMOPINIONH8D
because I want it empty...
06:57 PM on 09/11/2011
If they can pump tar sand thru a pipeline for thousands of miles why cant they do the same with water??
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim NLN
Obama 2012 and beyond!
10:31 AM on 09/12/2011
Now you are just being silly!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
02:40 PM on 09/12/2011
Would you pay $50 for a bath full of water that had to be pump hundreds of miles?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheGreatRenewal
Naming the next paradigm
12:43 PM on 09/11/2011
Why not think of some of these ideas before you put a pipeline anywhere.

Replant diversified forests, grasslands and hedgerows
Put solar hot water and micro wind on all buildings or micro wind
Develop clean energy
Put water catchment on all buildings
Modernize water, sewage systems
Put all power lines under ground
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
02:41 PM on 09/12/2011
Because your suggestions interfere with the US's desire for instant profits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mustraline
12:23 PM on 09/11/2011
The real alternative to being "too costly" is armed aggression between areas of the country.

It could start in a confrontation between northern and southern California, or even between north and south and west Texas. As global warming continues to take southwestern US back to desert (it's previous state) the tens of millions of people are not going to simply stand aside or migrate to water rich areas of the country.

30 years from now, this will be a common scene.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
02:43 PM on 09/12/2011
All civilizations that have tried to live in a desert climate have eventually failed, so there's no reason to believe the western states could be exempt. But big money talks too loudly and common sense is drowned out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
09:27 PM on 09/10/2011
Giant water "bags" floated slowly around continents using sails. Nope, that would just "get in the way"!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
09:22 PM on 09/10/2011
"It's too costly" is no excuse (for whatever the best way is).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
02:44 PM on 09/12/2011
Would you pay $20 for a pound of vegetables that were irrigated by water that was pumped 500 miles? What about $40? What is too costly for you?
08:59 PM on 09/10/2011
The fact is that water, like air, is too necessary to human survival for it to be comoditized and sold to the highest bidder. There is no reason to support the control of water by political nor commercial interests. It is cheaper, and harder to prove, to bribe an underpaid politician than it is to convince a rich and powerful industrial leader to allow affordable access to the common man and woman, much less poor children. Nothing will solve the problem of scarcity other than a sharp drop in population... or a profound change in the imbalance of our culture, values and behavior. You cannot DO anything to create the change, you can only BE the change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
02:47 PM on 09/12/2011
Bribery and corruption have caused thousands of dams to be built and rivers to be diverted. Greedy landowners/farmers and greedy power-hungry politicians have turned deserts into green oases. But it can't be sustained and will fail. The US is all about a quick profit.
08:21 PM on 09/10/2011
Moving water from constantly varying wet spots across the country would be ineffectual. But developing the ability to pump water from annual flood areas across relatively flat terrain to a single area that in itself could deliver it to a massive area of need might be reasonable. I am referring here to the annual spring flooding of the Mississippi's northern area and the relatively close Ogallala Aquafer that supplies our national breadbasket with water and is seriously going dry. I have great confidence in the Army Corp of Engineers and I would be willing to bet they could harness this supply and design a pipeline to get it to the Ogallala aquafer as an annual supplement to it's own water. This would be developing Infrastructure that could benefit and feed us for generations. I'd love to hear what people who live in that area think about this idea.
Oginikwe
I think therefore I'm dangerous
12:33 AM on 09/11/2011
I have great confidence in the Army Corp of Engineers

Why? Because they did such a great job in New Orleans pre-Katrina?
05:12 PM on 09/12/2011
they were constrained by pols. (and citizens) who did't want to pay for improvements--not their inability to perform the job----------
-remember how "it could have been worse" was called namby pamby by the right?
seems we only react after the problem turns into a disaster
charles77
Just the Facts Please
07:25 PM on 09/10/2011
There certainly is no shortage of water. Many "greens" pretend there is so they can control more of our lives.

Moving it from one place to another is not that diffucult, Rome did it a thousand years ago.
08:56 PM on 09/10/2011
Ancient Romans moved it from the mountains, a hundred miles or so to the plains, using gravity. The geography and topography of the US is on a far different scale.
charles77
Just the Facts Please
02:08 PM on 09/12/2011
And we certainly have much better technology than the Romans.
Oginikwe
I think therefore I'm dangerous
12:38 AM on 09/11/2011
Educate yourself.

"Blue Gold": http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Blue+Gold&aq=f

"Tapped": http://www.youtube.com/resultssearch_query=tapped+documentary&aq=1&oq=Tapped

"Frontline: Poisoned Waters": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
charles77
Just the Facts Please
02:07 PM on 09/12/2011
You might try to educate yourself.

Go find a map of the world. See all those blue areas? That's water.

We certainly can remove the salt from seawater to make freash water, the US navy does it every day. Many countries have such plants. It is just a matter of moving it from where it is to where it is needed.
04:58 PM on 09/10/2011
Guess you gotta be an oil company to pipe stuff around.
02:28 PM on 09/10/2011
Very interesting article covering several key points. But, couldn't the governments build pipe lines to carry the water? if they are built to carry oil why not water? just a thought, maybe a silly one... but what is not silly is to be aware of the droughts people in several countries go through and nothing is done to prevent such disasters
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
03:03 PM on 09/12/2011
Local water may cost just a few dollars per acre/foot to irrigate crops. The cost of pumping water hundreds or thousands of miles uses up massive amounts of electricity, plus the billions in construction costs of these projects. Irrigation water could then cost hundreds of dollars per acre/foot. Would you pay $20 for a pound of vegetables grown on out-of-state water? The farmers couldn't afford to pay for this water so it would be subsidized by the government with tax money, so we'd all be paying extra.

The disaster is moving people into deserts and building cities with water from other states. It will eventually fail. You can't control nature, no matter how wealthy you are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bogstomper2
A secular conservative
02:08 PM on 09/10/2011
As nice as it would be to see some of that east coast rain here in the dry, brown heart of Texas, re-engineering the continent's drainage system seems like a bad idea. The energy and effort spent on such a project would be better spent on upgrading our power supplies.
05:23 PM on 09/12/2011
you drink electricity? water fields of grain or grazing land with it?==don't see the connection!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Saul Bolocs
Be Here Now or Not Be Here Now.
10:11 PM on 09/12/2011
Read Cadillac Desert. Currently you know nothing about this subject.
photo
snowballinhell
Humans have a 100% chance of extinction
01:23 PM on 09/10/2011
I would have titled this Moving Water from Flood to Famine. Might have made a better emotional impact. But seriously, why not have a desalination plant alongside every nuclear power plant situated along our coasts. Let the plants make their own cooling water and leave our streams alone for the benefit of our dwindling ecosystems of lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas. Of course, as an added benefit, that water could be moved upstream during droughts to be used to irrigate cropland that would otherwise be non productive. It might also save our topsoil. Oh, well, just another governmental ponzi scheme that soaks the rich and gives to the poor. Oh, wait. No it doesn't. But it is just another water fantasy.