[OPED] Cali has about 1 years worth of water left

[Titan Uranus]

to high by a factor of ten, by my reckoning. will try and find some better numbers.

Not sure a canal/aquaduct would be the way to do this. It'd have to be HUGE to get enough water through at a not deadly flow speed. Which might put those numbers back into the right ball park actually. We're not talking a railway viaduct here, but something the size of a large river.

You could use more than one pipeline/aquaduct.

In fact I bet it would be far easier and more effective to do it that way.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

California already drains the Colorado River dry (well, OK, other states help, too). What other rivers and deltas will we sacrifice for the CV?

All I know is that the ranchers, farmers, barge shipping and industrial concerns in the Pacific Northwest which support the Columbia-Snake system dams will fight to the death over water being moved south, and by fight to the death I mean maybe actual violence, because it's happened before in western water wars, except... This time, the Native Americans and the Environmentalists and Fishermen will be on the same side, unlike over the Dams. Which means a solid wall of opposition in the entire Northwestern corner of the country ready to do anything to keep a drop of water going south.

And of course if they did steal the water anyway, they'd just start having rolling brownouts again, as the long-distance transmission lines from the Grand Coulee and Bonneville and the Tri-cities nuclear reactor are basically the one lifeline of affordable electricity to California, and when the rivers run low, the dams cut back generation.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, the Great Lakes states and provinces have likewise forestalled California and the West from taking their water - even if that's an unlikely proposition. We've seen what happened in the West, we don't want our regions raped to slake the thirst of the West.

[amigocabal]

Yeah, the Great Lakes states and provinces have likewise forestalled California and the West from taking their water - even if that's an unlikely proposition. We've seen what happened in the West, we don't want our regions raped to slake the thirst of the West.

How much money will those states charge for the use of their water?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Yeah, the Great Lakes states and provinces have likewise forestalled California and the West from taking their water - even if that's an unlikely proposition. We've seen what happened in the West, we don't want our regions raped to slake the thirst of the West.

Won't it take an immense logistic undertaking to even take water from there?

[Irbis]

Won't it take an immense logistic undertaking to even take water from there?

Wouldn't it be just about 2/3 of length of the Keystone Pipeline thing? That is, doable, though IMO pointless...

[Borgholio]

Keystone goes through some of the flattest and most boring land in North America. Anything coming from the Midwest to California would have to pass over (or under) this pesky little molehill we call the Rocky Mountains. That would drive up the cost more than the entire rest of the pipeline, methinks.

[amigocabal]

Yeah, the Great Lakes states and provinces have likewise forestalled California and the West from taking their water - even if that's an unlikely proposition. We've seen what happened in the West, we don't want our regions raped to slake the thirst of the West.

Won't it take an immense logistic undertaking to even take water from there?

Water prices would have to skyrocket to the level of gas prices before such a thing can even make a profit, let alone at a rate that exceeds the interest rate.

[aerius]

Wouldn't it be just about 2/3 of length of the Keystone Pipeline thing? That is, doable, though IMO pointless...

Problem is capacity. Keystone carries about 100 million litres of oil per day which sounds like a lot of oil, and it is. But let's compare it to the amount of water going through the All-American Canal which irrigates the main agricultural area in California. 100 million litres is a bit over 2 minutes worth of flow in the canal. We're short by a few orders of magnitude here, my rough math shows about 600 times the flow rate of Keystone so that's gonna be one hell of a big pipe. The individual tunnels which carry water to the Niagara Falls generating stations have a similar flow rate to the All-American Canal, and they're over 40' in diameter. As I said, one hell of a big pipe.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Mississippi-Great Lakes system doesn't actually have water to spare on long term time averaged basis anyway. Any major diversion of water would simply not be possible in a drought, because as we actually saw the last couple years the Mississippi is already getting low enough to halt barge traffic, while the Great Lakes outflow is supplying some huge hydroelectric plants whom have no dedicated storage. Production is directly linked to the level of the Great Lakes which isn't actually static. This could only be resolved by raising the level of the Great Lakes, which is possible for enough money, but the amount of money would be completely insane, or damning the Mississippi which would flood out a massive amount of farmland.

The only way to get a lot more reliable freshwater into play is to build something like NAWAPA and divert water out of Northern Canada and Alaska
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... r_Alliance

But if the climate keeps warming up, and a trillion dollars doesn't spawn out of the ground, it might make a lot more sense to moving farming north as Canada thaws out. Would certainly be cheaper, as NAWAPA relies on multiple pumping stations. Originally intended to be nuclear, today it'd actually be a fair place for comical levels of solar power, since the buffer rereservoirs would even out flow at night.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, the Great Lakes states and provinces have likewise forestalled California and the West from taking their water - even if that's an unlikely proposition. We've seen what happened in the West, we don't want our regions raped to slake the thirst of the West.

How much money will those states charge for the use of their water?

Those states and provinces will not sell their water. For any price.

The water can not be piped/shipped/otherwise sent out of the Great Lakes watershed. Counties just south of mine are outside the watershed and can not use Lake Michigan water even though they're in the same state - unless they agree to treat all sewage and ship it back to the Great Lakes. So... some use for drinking water, but sprinkling it on agriculture? Nope. Sorry. Even if you are in close proximity to the Lakes.

The agreements involved are not simply agreements, they're international treaties. You'd have to get Canadian buy-in as well. Good luck with that.

[Thanas]

Yeah, especially because Canada has no incentive to agree to that - if farming would move north, that are potentially more jobs for Canadians.

[Tribble]

As a Canadian I'm going to be honest here by pointing out that our opinion does not matter. If the USA wants water one way or another it will get it whether we want them to or not, whether there are treaty obligations or not. The best outcome we could hope for is for some kind of saving face agreement to make it look like we were happily getting along and that everything is mutually beneficial. But it's not like we'll have any real say on what happens.

[Thanas]

Why is that?

[Stormin]

It's the whole mouse in bed with an elephant thing. Canada is lucky that the Americans don't push it but when they want something they get it, and an economic powerhouse state going dry would be something that will be a pretty good motivator to roll over objections.

[Tribble]

It's the whole mouse in bed with an elephant thing. Canada is lucky that the Americans don't push it but when they want something they get it, and an economic powerhouse state going dry would be something that will be a pretty good motivator to roll over objections.

Exactly. Canada is almost completely dependent on the USA militarily, economically, and politically. And on top of that the USA is one of the world's superpowers, vastly outstripping Canada in virtually conceivable category. Our opinion simply does not count for much.

As annoying as it is, it is actually in Canada's best interests that the USA (not to mention the rest of the world) ignore it. Fortunately everyone usually does, which allows us to go about our own way with little interference.

Unfortunately, sometimes events in the USA can cause their gaze to look northward. The only reason the USA will pay any attention to Canada is because it wants something... and well, we're not exactly in a position to say no.

However I give America credit where its due. A lot of countries would have just annexed us by now, but when America wants something it is usually content to politely ask us and make it look like the whole thing was a joint idea in the first place.

So yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Canadian water ended up heading down south at some point, or the USA having priority over joint waters.

[Simon_Jester]

The question is, what is the US going to do, threaten to invade Canada if they don't agree to allow the US to build a trillion-dollar water infrastructure project to move water to California?

That's a ridiculous scheme; there has never been and, I suspect, will never be a war fought between nation-states on those terms.

And as far as action short of war goes, this is an issue where Canada has strong motives to remain obstinate, and the US has limited means to coerce them, because threatening to, say, cut off trade as "punishment" for not consenting to such a giant pipeline is not a realistic thing for Congress to do either.

[Elheru Aran]

Water is something that is just a wee bit harder to steal than, say, grain exports or whatever. Sure, you can drill a big-ass pipeline under the ground for a few miles... but when farmers in Alberta start noticing that their wells are drying up for no reason, questions would be asked. Water rights are something that have been around for a very long time and there would be serious international outrage if the US started trespassing so boldly upon Canada in such a fashion. Not that anybody would actually do anything other than fling some strong language about (because frankly there's not much that can actually affect the US out there except maybe China cutting off relations).

The fact of the matter is that California and much of the southwestern US is fucked in the long run unless some fairly extreme measures are taken, which need to be assessed very carefully in view of their long-term environmental, economic and social impact. There are some options out there-- but ultimately the problem is that there's far too much demand for too little supply. Either ratchet up the supply-- not so easily done-- or lower the demand-- similarly drastic.

If the US is going to start leeching water from Canada, about the only way to really do it is to put gentle diplomatic and economic enticements and pressure upon them such as offering highly favourable trade benefits, agricultural assistance, things like that... but Canada has very little incentive to actually agree to any such thing, and the US doesn't have much excuse to do anything beyond asking not so nicely.

[Irbis]

The question is, what is the US going to do, threaten to invade Canada if they don't agree to allow the US to build a trillion-dollar water infrastructure project to move water to California?

Simply: find gullible right wing party, send someone to its leader promising few hundred million $ as kickbacks, donations, post-politics retirements, funding, etc. if they will politely consider a few proposals from this humble envoy. Want dozen recent examples of this from all over the world? There is no coincidence in the fact a lot of countries started to take second look at strong foreign "N"GOs recently.

Or hell, just have NSA dig up some dirt on reigning politicians and outright blackmail them. What do you think all the billions spent on prisms, echelons, flames, stuxnets, carnivores etc. are actually for? To catch a few frustrated, indoctrinated men that often can't afford a cell phone or net connection? Please. Remember Merkel phone spying?

That's a ridiculous scheme; there has never been and, I suspect, will never be a war fought between nation-states on those terms.

Seriously? There had been thousands of conflicts over access to water, starting at the dawn of time when tribe X pushed tribe Y from its cosy cave next to its lake with fishing grounds. Just check this paragraph, virtually all recent local conflicts in Middle East and Africa were over water access.

If the US is going to start leeching water from Canada, about the only way to really do it is to put gentle diplomatic and economic enticements and pressure upon them such as offering highly favourable trade benefits, agricultural assistance, things like that... but Canada has very little incentive to actually agree to any such thing, and the US doesn't have much excuse to do anything beyond asking not so nicely.

Just as Canada had little incentive to basically dynamite its military airplane industry (which, mind you, USA agreed to subsidize if only Canadians would actually use it!) just so that US-bootlicking Canadian right wing Prime Minister could order US arms (that were inferior, to boot)? While making his brown-nosing vassal bias so obvious that his government in fact collapsed over popular dissent from his actions?

Frankly, if Canada could destroy Avro plant and its newest plane to send saved money south even without prompt, what they would do with one? I somehow have doubts they would say 'no', at least not until all relevant papers were signed and ratified.

[The Romulan Republic]

The question is, what is the US going to do, threaten to invade Canada if they don't agree to allow the US to build a trillion-dollar water infrastructure project to move water to California?

That's a ridiculous scheme; there has never been and, I suspect, will never be a war fought between nation-states on those terms.

And as far as action short of war goes, this is an issue where Canada has strong motives to remain obstinate, and the US has limited means to coerce them, because threatening to, say, cut off trade as "punishment" for not consenting to such a giant pipeline is not a realistic thing for Congress to do either.

To be blunt, the US and Canada are two of the most friendly nations on the planet. While that could conceivably change in the future, I very much doubt the US is going to start treating Canada with any great hostility soon. For which I'm very glad since I'm a duel citizen of the US and Canada.

[Broomstick]

So yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Canadian water ended up heading down south at some point, or the USA having priority over joint waters.

That would be true IF the US was united over the water issue... but it isn't. California/Nevada/"The West" is only a part of the US, and much of the rest of the US emphatically does not want their water to go to The West.

The fact the Great Lakes straddle an international border just makes it that much harder for The West to "annex" the water - so yes, in this case the US is again using Canada for its own interests, but in this case the interests of Canada and that portion of the US that wants to keep the water in the Great Lakes overlap.

[Coop D'etat]

Just as Canada had little incentive to basically dynamite its military airplane industry (which, mind you, USA agreed to subsidize if only Canadians would actually use it!) just so that US-bootlicking Canadian right wing Prime Minister could order US arms (that were inferior, to boot)? While making his brown-nosing vassal bias so obvious that his government in fact collapsed over popular dissent from his actions?

Frankly, if Canada could destroy Avro plant and its newest plane to send saved money south even without prompt, what they would do with one? I somehow have doubts they would say 'no', at least not until all relevant papers were signed and ratified.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense if you have more than a passing understanding of Canadian political history.

The matter you are referring to occured due to internal Canadian politics, not at all due to American prompting, largely having to do with the expenses incurred. In any event, maintaining an independant military aviation sector wasn't a viable long-term proposition considering the relatively small size of the Canadian defense budget, maintaining independant production would have been more of a liablity than an asset.

Now you could characterize John Diefenbaker as a right-wing lickspittle to an imperial master, but you're referring to the wrong empire. He was a notorious British Empire/Commonwealth man who had a prickly at best relationship with the Americans (Washington generally preferred Liberal governments, who weren't as attached to the British during that era). For example, the downfall of his government you refer to was for deciding to refuse to base American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. To say that it was due to "brown nosing vassel bias" is so utterly ignorant, its sufficient to render your entire opinion on the matter suspect.


As to the water issue, its would be such an emotional and high profile political issue in Canada that no government would agree to it, particularly considering the various issues relating to how Canadian government is structured that makes it much more than a matter of getting a few government functionaries on board due to putative bribery/blackmail. As to the idea that they would invade over this issue, I really shouldn't have to explain why that's a non-starter unless it became a matter of vital national interest to the Americans, which is deeply unlikely to ever be the case.

[Stormin]

The question is, what is the US going to do, threaten to invade Canada if they don't agree to allow the US to build a trillion-dollar water infrastructure project to move water to California?

Remember when China moved that oil rig into disputed waters with Vietnam and started pumping out oil? Pretty much same situation, America can build pumping infrastructure on border/North flowing water resources and stand on top of it saying "What you gonna do? You gonna cry? Cry for me!"

It's the price of being next to any much larger power and honestly still better than having Russia come along and chop off choice bits every year like the Ukraine has happening.

[Terralthra]

I do find it somewhat interesting that when we were talking about Greece and the EU, certain people in this thread were outright lambasting the EU for their policies on aid and debt. They said that if the EU didn't support Greece, then they weren't really a union at all. They extolled the virtues of federalism for aiding those members who have problems from those who are doing well.

When it comes to transferring water from states that have lots of it to states that do not, the tune suddenly changes.

[aerius]

The problem with the Great Lakes is that something like 99% of the water in there is what's known as fossil water, that is water which was left over from the ice age. Only 1% of the water is renewing water, meaning water which is replenished by rainfall, snow, and other natural processes. And all of it currently flows out the St. Lawrence river. The upper lakes have only recently recovered from their lowest water levels in nearly a century and the lower lakes are still below average so it's not like there's an abundance of water to spare. It looks like a crapload of water just sitting there waiting to be used, but it ain't. The lakes are basically an above ground aquifer with a very limited replenishment rate compared to their size.