Idea would send water to western states
The Bureau of Land Reclamation has proposed a scheme to divert Missouri River water to western states and cities using pipeline costing billions that would take decades to build.
I think this is a bad idea. It raises many questions.A group studying ways to get more water to arid western states has proposed building a giant water pipeline to ship millions of gallons from the Missouri River to the Colorado River basin.
Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada are among the states who have said they need the extra water to deal with growing populations and growing energy production needs.
First of all, should it be policy to divert water to arid and desert areas that cannot naturally sustain large populations? Does this eventually create a artificial situation where millions of people continue to move to growing cities in the future at the expense of other existing regions and cities that have good supplies of water?
What happens when those areas grow so large that they become parasitic population centers that suck the life out of other regions? The Colorado River already runs dry at the Mexican border--depriving states in Mexico of water that used to flow there. Cities like Los Angeles already drain distant rivers and valleys, and create a situation where some agricultural parts of California are posed for water wars with urban centers.
With recent drought in the Midwest, and the lowering of the Missouri and Mississippi basin water levels, does this create competition for water resources in a manner that is unsustainable? Midwest states are already fighting over water policy.
Will this create future emergency situations where this policy diverts water to growing urban centers in arid states allowing unsustainable population growth there, and during droughts, decisions have to be made about who gets the water?
Should this type of policy be allowed to drain population and economic development from other regions of the country through artificial means? Shouldn't the federal government instead be promoting policies that attract jobs and retain population in existing cities that are losing population to Sun Belt states? Cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Chicago. This policy indirectly would encourage continued migration from existing urban areas to ones that cannot sustain populations normally.
Finally, I lived in Phoenix and know that large quantities of water are used for green lawns, parks, and golf courses, or to raise cotton in the desert areas that can't normally sustain that crop. Many homeowners in older parts of Phoenix have berms around their lawns and literally flood their lawns in the evening--from adjacent irrigation canals--to keep their grass green. I have a real problem with water being diverted for these practices.
Since 1992, when I left Phoenix, the metro population has doubled, and it will continue.
It seems to me that this policy only encourages people, jobs, and industry to leave existing older cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Rochester, and Buffalo. These cities sit on vast water resources in the Great Lake Region, and have natural transportation corridors to ship goods. Cities where plenty of water exists naturally.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/Pr ... index.html
