Water Pipeline: What If An Aqueduct Was Built From The Mississippi River To The Southwest? 

Got a far better way of doing this. triple aqueduct combination 1st Great Lakes. 2nd Colorado River. 3rd Mississippi River. Desalination solar domes. In South West Permaculture ponds for the Northeast and Northwest. Rain water collection as a suburb construction standard. Modernization or even rebuilding of the Colorado and Mississippi rivers DAMS. will it cost a lot of money, sure? But tens of millions of Jobs and hundreds of billions in water, agriculture, energy. This can revitalize the American people, Economy and Infrastructure.

Tony Robins said, It's not how many resources you have, it's how resourceful you are. Resources are everything. Your money, people, assets, commodities technology, land, nature, etc. are all resources. They all add up to the power of your country and wealth. In order to become rich, you have to kill more than 1 bird with 1 stone. The only way you can grow and become rich is literally dong more, not less. That's why you have to build the national water pipeline. It has been raining constantly in NY. That is literally money flowing down the gutters into the ocean. I recently learned electricity is generated by spinning magnets. If we were to collect all the rain water, put it into a national pipeline and flow it to where ever the country needs it, it could also be used to generate electricity from the momentum all along the pipeline. We could prevent forest fires with the water as the wood is people's resources. You can also line the sides with solar panels to further generate electricity. That electricity generated can pump the water up and stored at higher elevations and released down hill and generate more electricity from the kinetic energy when needed. The water could be used for crops, and to reclaim dry areas. At some point, you could even export water to the middle east, like they export oil. So many things you could do to create jobs for the homeless, etc.

Plus this idea is so low tech and green that if the low skilled labor mess up, the worst you have is a water spill, instead of an oil spill. I got this idea going to a water park that ironically was in danger of having a water shortage one year.

The problem could be solved if these western states would enforce water restrictions by not watering grass as often and grow drought tolerant plants.

California doesn't care about that.

Came to say this

is it now?

Because you can get more growing seasons per year. If you have eaten a salad in the winter, you are eating desert produce.

I like the "reservoir" idea too. All over the Midwest.. all that rain water just going into the sea eventually.

You know how I KNOW you don't really live in Mississippi?

@@TisiphonesShadow ??

@@tracejones5952 Since rule #1 is to be civil and respectful, I’m not going to say it, but… honestly, I was thinking the same thing.

Absolutely not. Bad idea.

Glad to see you're keeping up, Ean. Large-scale desalinization started in the 1930s and has improved significantly but is still far too expensive for anyone to make a massive profit from. But I'm glad to see that you're thinking.

Saudi’s are already ahead of us

With the idiots in California mandating all electric there won’t be any electricity for desalination. Idiots

@@brianbassett4379 The thing is that the western states won't get enough water down the road from the Colorado River and we can't keep relying on the aqueducts because they aren't refilling fast enough! So if a pipeline from the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River isn't the solution, then desalinization will have to be the solution you'd think, despite the cost. With the population continuing to get bigger in this region, one of these has to be the answer long term?

@@brianbassett4379 its expensive but if we put time and money into it itll get cheaper just like a bunch of other government backed industries like planes, or nuclear energy, we just have to get the science down right and that means investing in it!

It will not happen. They will never divert water from the Mississippi with out a civil war.

It is not going to happen not with out a war.

liberals dont understand and i lived in flroida for a couple years... get what you sew. In minnesota it is insanely illegal to give water to the idiots

Because it would literally cripple the entire country if it did divert. Boats need a certain amount of depth to be able to travel, a depth that doesn't exist where the Mississippi is trying to go.

That is a stupid solution when we have known for ~100 years the easy solution. Upper Snake River diverted into the upper Green river. ~Same elevation. Only need about 20 miles of pipe. The Cost is only in terms of hydroelectric power potential... which you would get back as it goes to sea level or nearly there in the SW USA. Upper Missouri is used for AG. Vast majority of Columbia river/Snake river is not even though it used to be so, but due to low prices of AG products, old water rights have been left vacant for going on 50 years now. ~10 Million acres in the Snake/Columbia river used to be under irrigation. Today it is around 2million. Most of that in Washington state.

"The thinking in this video is no different than the thinking that led to the Lake Owens drying up and Lake Mono almost disappearing". That is why he said that it wasn't a good idea.

you mexians can die, it will never work... it would be sabotaged anyways

Upper Snake River diversion or bust.

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.

I bet that sounded smart in your head.

@@ericvulgate why is it not smart?

New Orleans should not have been rebuilt anyway. Not sustainable

It wouldnt be anything compared to the outflow of the mississippi, naive kid

@@Lyle-xc9pg Just like the southwest's water use wasn't anything compared to the outflow of the Colorado River - until it was, naive kid.

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.

To far north subject to freezing

I have been in Arizona when there was ice and snow. That place can get cold.

You could let the Sun do all the work for you. I understand it is the cause of the water cycle. The sun is powered by Thermonuclear power. Or you could just do a rain dance. /s.

Better than my argument about the same thing.

I think you've been sitting on this comment for a long time.

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.

We have never built a pipeline in these harsh conditions. The Alaskan pipeline was way easier to build. We can’t build pumps that can handle the pressure (Panama canal) well those ones were built so long ago and we can never do those again. We don’t have the electricity. Yeah I know we have no way of building power sources. What other things do you have?

Planting trees in a desert where there were no trees before ? Would just be Peter robbing from Paul. A good idea though. 100 times better than diversion.

id rather plant more river birches and watch the south burn, 78 iq idiots deserve it lel

yup they are not taking our water. They will spark a civil war that the south west can not win.

It wouldnt be anything compared to the outflow of the mississippi, naive kid

@@Lyle-xc9pg Trust me People of the south have no love for California and we are NOT going to just let them come and take our water.

Yeah the basic answer was it's too expensive, costing at minimum 100 billion. But then again the military did spend 700 billion on the Iraq war in 10 years... so yeah that seems more of an excuse than a real reason.

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.

Or maybe it is just the topic?

It is an answer, but a stupid and short sighted one. The Mississippi river is already low due to drought recently and your magnificent plan is to use what little water it has to turn a dessert in Arizona into prime farmland. The fact that people from the Southwest are in denial of the reality that they live in a dessert that can't sustain millions nor should it, the population can't, nor should it continue to grow less the problem become even unsustainable and like heck are we people east of the Mississippi going to see our water supply sacrificed on the altar of that.

Creating a food basket in a desert at the expense of one of the most impoverished region's resources. Idk, maybe consider that food doesn't grow in a desert

Your off on this the bureau of reclamation released a report in 2012 using the upper missouri basin as the source of new water intake. Even a modest project like that which is closer would increase the cost of water for the southwest to $600 to $1000 per acre foot. If we use Las Vegas which uses around 243k acre foot which is pretty low considering how much you recycle your looking at water for the year costing just Las Vega somewhere around 145million. That $600 to $1000 per acre foot is also in 2012 dollars. As for 200ft below surface your not dealing with land owner then your dealing with mineral rights owners. I.e big corporations their even less likely to want to sell then a landowner. 200ft is also not enough to circumvent that because oil is at least 6000ft down. So by the time you dug down deep enough to get around any mineral rights claims it would probably be cheaper to build it across the land then. Seeing as we've already established that's not really cheap either. Back to the other plans keep conserving recycling and working on desal.

Hero status

Desalination wont work for so many people. 80% of fish that humams consume lives near the coast. Desalination if used on a vast scale causes dead zones. It would destroy western coast fishing industries.

It's the return of mass quantities of salt to the ocean that causes that issue. They should store the salt inland.

Build a waste disposal pipeline miles out into the ocean. There are already natually occuring highly saline ated areas on the ocean floor

Desalination is not economically viable option, it would cost close to 2.4 billion dollars a year to disseminate enough water to replace the cuts from the Colorado River alone, that's a mere 4.4 million acre-feet of water.

im for this if it means us selling water to them

You forgot the part that crops need sunshine to grow at a desert has ample Sunshine. If you can control the water and apply fertilizer, the desert is the perfect place to grow crops which is why California supplies 70% of the US with its food.

I think the technology is not there yet to do on a large scale.

They drained a lake to plant in it🤣

GFYS!

Your still looking at a massive increase to the cost of water for the southwest then. From the Upper Missouri Basin i.e the Dakota's area which is not only much closer to Colorado but also nearing in elevation your looking at a cost of $600 to $1000 per acre foot of water delivered. Per the Bureau of Land Reclamation's 2012 report. I.e the people that manage most of the southwest's water. I.e not financially feasible even if California was willing to foot the bill which not even the US govt itself would wanna foot the bill at that cost. End of the day even if you got all of the states in the midwest on board someone has to pay for it. The Federal Govt doesn't have the cash to even pay for current projects so their off the table. The Midwest states will not say here have all this rain water and we'll pay for it as well. The southwest states might but the resulting tax increase will probably cause most people living there to leave. No the answer is conserve your water, recycle it and look into desalination. Which won't be cheap but is mostly likely magnitudes cheaper then trying to pump water over the divide even at it's lowest point.

Where exactly do you think that "Midwestern rain" goes now?

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.

The narrator's conclusion is that the idea of sending water to the West by any means - is not feasible.