Skip to comments.How Texas could buy Louisiana water [aquaduct(s)]
Posted on 07/15/2014 8:34:33 AM PDT by topher
This might be some background reading on this:
FoxNews: California expected to set mandatory water curbs for first time
Over one hundred years ago, folks in California were planning their future by planning on aquaducts.
Occasionally, Louisiana has too much water (flooding) and Texas too little.
The key number in all of this is that Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas is at about 400-500 feet above sea level.
That means an aquaduct system could be built such there could be four to five stations that raise the water 100 feet or more.
Louisiana has a number of river systems (besides the Mississippi River) that run near the Gulf Coast -- Calcasieu, Vermilion, Teche, and so on, and so on.
Then there is the Bonne Carre Spillway which is meant to divert water from flooding Baton Rouge and New Orleans so that if necessary Morgan City gets flooded out (folks in Morgan City are not found of this).
Along this Louisiana/Texas aquaduct could be jogging/bike/hiking trails and even water parks (swimming only, no boating).
If one makes the aquaduct wide enough (100 feet by 40 feet deep), then it could deliver millions of acre feet of water a year. However, someone would have to do the Math on that.
Dallas/Fort Worth (and other cities such as Wichita Falls) have reservoirs/lakes. They just don't have any water.
California is in a bind because over a hundred years ago their water system was based on some very good snow fall years on the Sierra Mountains. Now they are facing a deficit in snowfall.
A good tropical storm or even a good summer rain system might dump 10 inches of rain on Southern Louisiana.
What is needed is that there needs to be a system to catch the rain, and send it to a place where it is needed.
Once this done, and Texas has an abundance of water and builds even more reservoirs, then it might possible to go further North (Oklahoma/Kansas) or West (Western Texas/New Mexico).
This might be pie-in-the-sky type of talk, but Texas might need water for their energy industry, and the dollars Louisiana/Texas generates from energy (oil/natural gas) might be used for in getting water to some thirsty areas of Texas FROM Louisiana.
Of course, Texas could send some pocket change to Louisiana annually...
And I would trust folks in Texas/Louisiana working out the details, and keeping the Federal Government out of this except to provide funding.
“...and keeping the Federal Government out of this except to provide funding.”
Heh! I’m waiting for some ill-educated low IQ eco-Nazi to start a movement to stop any water pipelines.
Followed shortly by the Obamadork/Holder collection of clown felons to back the movement up with their typical lying and corruption.
This really makes sense. Instead of sending the water to the Gulf of Mexico, send it to Texas
Ditto from Washington and Oregon south into central Kalifornia.
There are 3,700 named streams and 14 major rivers that meander through 191,000 miles (mi)
of Texas landscape. These important aquatic ecosystems play a major role in protecting water
quality, preventing erosion, and providing nutrients and habitat for fish and wildlife.
Along the way, water that eventually flows into seven major estuaries supports over 212 reservoirs,
countless riparian habitats, wetlands, and terrestrial areas. Each year Texas rivers and
streams provide recreational opportunities to millions of Texans and visitors from all
around the world.
The 14 major Texas rivers are the: Canadian, Red, Brazos, Sulphur, Trinity, Sabine, Neches,
San Jacinto, Guadalupe, Lavaca, San Antonio, Colorado, Nueces, and the Rio Grande. These
major rivers form a series of 13 major river basins, which consist of the Brazos, Canadian,
Colorado, Guadalupe, Lavaca, Neches, Nueces, Red, Rio Grande, Sabine, and Trinity river basins.
What makes you think he ever said that?
He didn’t but that is where water can be gotten.
Or, from aquaducts.
(see article above)
Yep that is certainly another source.
If this ever becomes more than a pipe dream, I would suggest studying the Colorado River Aqueduct which transports water from the Colorado River 350 miles or so into urban Southern California. It has 5 water lift stations powered by cheap hydropower from Hoover Dam. So water pumps water uphill. Water is often free but catching it, conveying it and treating it amounts to its price. If there is an initial price for the water then that may make the proposal not cost effective. Regional water systems are the way to provide more reliability. Texas is planning some ocean water desalting plants but then the water has to be pumped uphill and Dallas is too far to make conveying such water economically feasible.
San Antonio/Austin are major population centers that are also quite thirsty.
If these rivers/streams get rains, that is fine. But most them just dump the water into the Gulf of Mexico.
There would be a case to capture as much Texas water as possible.
But with Louisiana, the Mississippi can be tapped, as well as other areas.
Parts of South Louisiana normally get 40 to 60 inches of rain a year.
South Texas gets considerably less.
You could look at the current drought map, and see that Texas has not been receiving much rain.
Any rivers/streams in South Texas could/should be use to make sure Houston area (about 10 million) and San Antonio/Austin have enough water...
The California Aquaducts used to allow cycling/jogging/hiking.
No reason not to have this in the Sportsman Paradise.
Pipelines just don't have that type of stuff.
More water means more building in the cities and more Democrats. Does Texas need more refugees from destroyed states?
Further north the thing to do would be to send water from the Mississippi tributaries during spring flood March to June to South Pass in Wyoming and add a lot more water to the southwest.
All you’d need most years to stop the flooding on the Mississippi is to slice off the top ten feet of water at flood stage. (there would be years when you’d need to slice off 20 feet.)
So instead of paying the army corp of engineers billions to maintain the dikes and billions to FEMA to pay for flood damage— you’d simply divert the money to pay for a big water diversion project.
A false premise.
Mossberg is moving to Texas from Connecticut. people who work know where the jobs come from. Those that get their jobs from government wil stay in thier decaying states
Texas seems to be drawing all the jobs. Is their unemployment rate lower than other states?
The problem is high density city growth vs. low density rural growth. If unbalanced, Texas will go Democrat, and with it the whole country. You can look at any population density map and match it pretty closely to who voted Democrat: all the areas with a population density greater than 1,000 people per square mile.
Water transportation is a key technology required for high density cities to exist. If Texas limits an area to just the water God provides naturally, it will stay God's country.
Texas not bad. North Dakota, the boom continues.
The Ogallala provides a lot of water for irrigation in the Texas panhandle as far south as Midland. Texas considered the problems with the falling level and how that would affect the Texas ag economy.
In 1988 Texas did a feasibility on pumping water from the mouth of the Miss river via pipeline up to Possum Kingdom lake. From there, the Brazos river channel would be re-engineered so that the water would reach Lubbock, and then be distributed thru out the panhandle for irrigation.
Needless to say, it was not feasible, but the problem of the falling level of the Ogallala aquifer has not gone away.
You may recall a few years ago Boone Pickens and Mesa Water were given water rights from the Ogallala and were trying to sell that water to San Antonio or DFW. They eventually sold those water rights to 6-7 municipalities in the panhandle who needed it because Lake Meredith was going dry.