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

[@GeographyByGeoff]

Get NordVPN 2 year plan + 4 months free here nordvpn.com/wigeography. It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!

[@JTL1776]

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.

[@dtsai]

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.

[@dtsai]

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.

[@robertbenkelman947]

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

[@adoxartist1258]

I live in Mississippi. I have always thought that we should use a water pipeline to divert flood waters from our area to a giant holding area for distribution to areas in drought. Definitely don't siphon the usual water away, just redirect excess flood waters. I wonder how that would work.

[@jackietucker8942]

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

[@TisiphonesShadow]

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

[@tracejones5952]

@@TisiphonesShadow ??

[@TheGbelcher]

@@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.

[@maxhengstenberg908]

Absolutely not. Bad idea.

[@edwardmeade]

I scream every time I see one of these videos. Everybody is missing the megaproblem. GRAVITY! The Colorado compact is based on 15e6 acre-feet of water or 653.4e9 cu.ft. per year. Water weighs 62.4 lb/cu.ft. so you're talking about lifting 40.7e12 lbs. Lifting anything near the earth's surface requires 0.0003768 Wh per lb per ft raised. Denver is famously a mile high at 5280 ft, Salt Lake City is about 4200ft, Las Vegas 2000ft and Phoenix is 'only' 1580ft about sea level. The Mississippi at the confluence of the Ohio is just under 300 ft. For arguments sake let's assume that - on average - you're going to have to raise 40.7e12 lbs of water about 2000 ft.: more to Denver and Salt Lake City, a little less to Las Vegas and Phoenix. So, you're going to need around 30 billion Kwh worth of energy (net) just to raise it along the Z-axis before you can even begin to start discussing moving it north, south, east or west. Of course, this all assumes you have frictionless pipes, 100% efficient motors, pumps and energy transmission systems which you don't.

[@sealy3]

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.

[@gmoritz71last52]

Better than my argument about the same thing.

[@lostchild2003]

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

[@davidcawrowl3865]

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

[@toddaho9781]

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?

[@eansilva5473]

I feel like we should be doing more research on desalination. Now I don’t know the logistics of it at all, but surely if the government or some other force could dedicate time and money to it then we could for sure solve the water scarcity problem once and for all. I know it’s expensive, but when we’re constantly facing water shortages and droughts I’m surprised we don’t talk about it more.

[@brianbassettnumber1]

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.

[@magos_0083]

Saudi’s are already ahead of us

[@daleolson3506]

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

[@dankelly5150]

@@brianbassettnumber1 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?

[@2polartv319]

@@brianbassettnumber1 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!

[@UserName-ts3sp]

phoenix, LA and SD need to follow las vegas’s example, they’re really good with water conservation

[@history_leisure]

We are forcibly preventing the Mississippi from diverting away from New Orleans, but I guess we don't want that to dry out either

[@black-onion1776]

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

[@black-onion1776]

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

[@mails5054]

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

[@gabrielclark1425]

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.

[@davidwhite4997]

Last I heard ship traffic on the Mississippi was being cut down hugely because the Mississippi was low this year. An Aqueduct that would drain more water from the Mississippi would likely leave the Mississippi nearly dry in a year like this one. Ouch! This idea needs a lot more work.

[@tudorjason]

An aqueduct wouldn't matter The Mississippi River is dry too!

[@G4Disco]

California doesn't care about that.

[@magos_0083]

Came to say this

[@Alex-zq9zm]

is it now?

[@paulkurilecz4209]

The US Bureau of Reclamation has already addressed this in their 2012 report on the Colorado River basin. Their recommendation is a diversion from the upper Missouri River basin. Even with this diversion, the cost of water delivered at Lake Mead would be in the range of $600 to $1,000 per acre foot. The Imperial Irrigation District charges its ag users only $25 per acre foot, so I don't think that the ag users will be very much interested in this. Even the domestic/residential water users in southern California would not be interested in this increase for water. It would be good to check to see how this compares to the cost of seawater desalination, which I think is only on the order of $100 to $200 per acre foot. Building a diversion from the lower Mississippi River makes even less sense as the elevation difference is even higher. Even going to the lowest point on the Continental Divide in New Mexico is still an elevation difference of over 4,000 feet. And then there are the logistics of building a pipeline system to do this. And even more, do you really want to do an EIS on the Atchafalaya River basin on the effect of reduced water flows? The thinking in this video is no different than the thinking that led to the Lake Owens drying up and Lake Mono almost disappearing.

[@w8stral]

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.

[@DM-dn7rf]

"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.

[@mails5054]

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

[@jimcharles9705]

It seemed like this video had a beginning, but no middle or end. It was sort of like, "What if we built a pipeline from the Mississippi?" The answer then was, "It would be REALLY expensive." And few, if any, alternatives were presented. The one important point that I'm glad was left in was that the Colorado is so plundered by the Southwest U.S. that its flow no longer reliably makes it to the Gulf of California, its historic mouth. Too many people choosing to live in places with too few resources. Then we blame the results on Climate Change. Climate Change is real. The issue being that Climate Change or not, expecting a desert to support millions of people on one modest caliber river is a very big ask.

[@popfan5412]

I live around the Mississippi and we don’t want that. Just because the southwest uses to much water doesn’t mean they should steal ours!!!

[@black-onion1776]

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

[@Lyle-xc9pg]

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

[@black-onion1776]

@@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.

[@glenncartwright6136]

One of the biggest problems with diverting large quantities of water from the Mississippi River is the fact that the Mississippi River Delta was created and is maintained by silt carried down the river by said waters. If the amount of water flowing into the delta is reduced then the delta will begin shrinking and sinking into the Gulf Of Mexico. This will greatly increase New Orleans's and other coastal cities' vulnerability to storm surges from hurricanes and tropical storms.

[@daleolson3506]

New Orleans should not have been rebuilt anyway. Not sustainable

[@Lyle-xc9pg]

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

[@glenncartwright6136]

@@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.

[@davidcawrowl3865]

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

[@HootGamingQUIT]

Unlike the pipeline from Lake Michigan, I actaully agree with this one, it’s just draining into the ocean so why not?

[@elapplzsl]

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.

[@waynecornwell3998]

I was born and raised in Arizona and still live here. And why simple knowledge one of the biggest things against the pipeline or an aqueduct between Mississippi and the Southwest is you have to pump the water uphill. You have to remember the national geography of the continental United States. On the east side of the Rockies the water flows East constantly having to pump the water uphill.

[@w8stral]

Upper Snake River diversion or bust.

[@davidcawrowl3865]

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

[@jameshunt5316]

You can Siphon the water. No need to pump.

[@c.i.demann3069]

instead of moving the water to the alfalfa farmers, we should move the alfalfa farmers to the water.

[@ericvulgate]

I bet that sounded smart in your head.

[@theperfectpeanutbutterjell7553]

@@ericvulgate why is it not smart?

[@TheLiamster]

This reminds me of NAWAPA which was a massive project to build a system of reservoirs and aqueducts throughout the US and Canada to supply the American southwest with water and electricity

[@thetrainguy1]

The real question people should be asking is why the Fudge are we growing produce in the middle of a desert???

[@watwudscoobydoo1770]

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

[@markballard9942]

I always chuckle when folks talk about diverting water from the Great Lakes to the Western United States. Water in the Great Lakes is controlled by treaty with Canada. The US cannot willy-nilly siphon off water in a pipeline.

[@adoniswalk]

Great video. What about an above-ground pipeline? 1.easy to repair 2.less environment disruption 3.less expensive 4.capture the rain (not from or near existing reservoirs)

[@RexBennett-w5v]

To far north subject to freezing

[@lofm6213]

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

[@garivera15]

An aqueduct would not need to be built from the Mississippi River itself all the way to the US Southwest for the Southwest to benefit.. From the Ft Randall dam area of the Missouri River an aqueduct only 600 miles in length could be constructed across Nebraska to the Granby area of northern Colorado from where the natural flow of the Colorado River begins its southern trek. It could be done.

[@roberthall8294]

All the people who say that a water pipe to the south west is not the answer are wrong.first of all the project would pay for itself by paying for the water by the people out west who would use it. The land problem would be solved by tunneling 200 ft below the surface of the land thereby eliminating any resistance from landowners . And eliminating evaporation since the water would be 200 ft underground bare minimum. The cost environmentally would be negligible because the Mississippi River is not only on the surface but also an underground river and tapping 10% of it would sustain the whole Southwest and California. Stabilizing the region cooling the planet changing the weather pattern favorably and creating a food basket in the Southwest to feed the entire world.

[@aliassomebody8343]

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.

[@ColonizerChan]

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

[@LavitosExodius]

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.

[@ColonizerChan]

>70% is agriculture >in a desert I think the problem is clear here

[@andrefalksmen1264]

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.

[@imjashingyou3461]

Why is the solution NEVER for the Southwest to live within its means but for it to degrade other environments and locals. They tried to do this with the Great Lakes. We already see how low the Mississipi can get already and these same streams that supply the Mississippi are going to drying out further.

[@DavidBrewerADDknight]

I don't know how you don't have more views and likes. You're content is some of the better presented

[@DavidBrewerADDknight]

Or maybe it is just the topic?

[@gmoritz71last52]

There was no mention of the fact that ALL of the proposed diversion of water has to be pumped *UP* around 1 mile vertically. Pumping UP this much H2O for any "decent" amount of water will co$t - - $ $ $ $ $ - - . Albuquerque is about at an elevation of 5,00 ft ( approx ). Even if you go all the way to LA, you *STILL* have to pump water 'over the hill' - - a mile up.

[@jameshunt5316]

You can use siphons.

[@SteppesoftheLevant]

Lyndon larouche also envisioned some water pipeline with canada called NAWAPA

[@bry10101]

Trees and such actually help to reduce evaporation through the shade they provide. It would be worth planting trees in between crop grows to cast shade in the crops. It would be costly upfront but probably worth it in the end

[@darrylbunch6929]

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.

[@mails5054]

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

[@TheGbelcher]

I think an aqueduct from the West Coast, like the Sequoia Forest would make more sense than from Mississippi. You’d have to build a tunnel, but at least then the water wouldn’t have to flow up hill. Phoenix is in a valley but it’s still over 1,000 ft higher than the river basin. You could easily build a reservoir in the Sequoia forest above 1,300 ft that would still be the lowest area of the park.

[@robnowe5464]

One way to easily increase the inland moisture and water available to the southwest would be to use seawater from the Sea of Cortez or even the West Coast to raise the surface area and water level of the Salton Sea in CA. The additional evaporation and even the introduction of sea life to the area would create a fishing recreational area and maybe even commercial fishing industry and, if managed right, with the creation of a lot of shoreline for homes and suburbia the real estate revenue would pay for it all... remember the Salton Sea is BELOW sea level so it would all be gravity fed. If you build the shoreline at 20ft above sea level there would be no danger of flooding. All that evaporated water would add to the water in the southwestern states. If you continued a pipeline from the Salton Sea to all the dry lakes in the deserts that were more saline they too could be employed in a similar fashion.

[@ryanmay3022]

Why doesnt California build its own desalination plants instead of suggesting stealing it from middle America?

[@RK-cj4oc]

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.

[@ericvulgate]

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

[@ryanmay3022]

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

[@andrefalksmen1264]

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.

[@Alex-zq9zm]

im for this if it means us selling water to them

[@Seanny]

Thank you for the information! Keep up the great work!!

[@Z3N1TY0]

3:35 *looking for golfland bc I’m going to it’s attached waterpark later today*

[@salm8990]

Wouldn’t it be easier to just move the people to the water instead of the water to the people?

[@daveh893]

These are good points. Also, the aqueduct would be going uphill most of the way.

[@hotdesertroks889]

Just watched the same video twice by clicking on to this video from your "What If An Aqueduct Was Built From the Great Lakes To The Southwest" video. DAMN YOU BABY NECK!

[@RPNN]

Should work good. Just pump into Lake Mead or Lake Powell, and the whole system could automatically turn off when lake levels reach 100% full.

[@fabiomorandi3585]

Ironically, much of the Colorado water taken up by California goes to keeping the Salton Sea around, which wouldn't be as necessary for the irrigation of the Imperial Valley if someone hadn't desiccated Tulare Lake further north.

[@eliasthienpont6330]

A pipeline? What arrant nonsense. Google "NYC Water Tunnel No.3". It has been under construction for over 20 years. It is about 50' in diameter and runs about 15 miles from a reservoir in the Bronx (a part of NYC), and serves about 2/3rds of the population. You want to move 1200 miles and serve many more millions of people. And, BTW, your mighty Mississippi has been almost empty this past two years. A Tunnel ls nowhere near possible, no matter how many billions of dollars you would spend. Oh, and land ownership does not apply in NYC since it is over 500' deep nobody owns the land down there. You should be able to build a pipeline from Mars, they should have plenty of water this time of year.

[@adamwright9741]

In the map you showed of the Southern United States, such a diversion could happen in the North portion of Missouri! There's a lot of political ways that they could help the rest of the state's out, going west, that could really make this a feasible thing!! .. but okay maybe only to northern Arizona, and make them have to fund the diversion south in their own State haha

[@Donosauros_Rex]

It's nice to know that they are dumping 14% of the Upper Basin's portion of water into the chunk error

[@mohsinjaved1358]

Agriculture in this area needs to drastically shift from water heavy to dryland agriculture. Agroforestry would go a long way to mitigate these issues.

[@RyanS32]

So I understand California's Central Valley being an agricultural powerhouse due to the fertile land, but who thought the Sonoran Desert was a great place to try agriculture?

[@chrisloving6647]

They drained a lake to plant in it🤣

[@roadtoad7704]

I'd like to see a video about the coming demise of the Not So Great Salt Lake

[@narayanapydipati3397]

I as an Retd engineer,water resources feel diverting water by pipe line is not a good solution. Moreover diverting from low point and running almost through lower region won’t solve the drought ,in the upper region of Colorado basin,&CA.Tapping water from upper regions from different junctions of tributaries, lifting water by heavy pumps, running water by open channels is advisable.Kaleswaram lift irrigation project is the best way to serve the need at different times.Kaleswaram l I p situated in Telangana state,India on Godavari river.Instead of draining 60%of water into Gulf of Mexico we can utilise for needy,thirsty,drought stricken areas for better purposes. I personally request the concerned authorities,US corps of Engineers to consider my request on humanitarian grounds to save the lives in that region. With regards P AV Narayana ,Retd EE, DyCE, Govt of AP,India.

[@reneeolson3952]

The real reason for the water shortage in the Southwest is population growth, combined with growing needs for agriculture. 97% of climate change is naturally occuring (they never tell you that) so the best option is a pipeline from the Mississippi. Yes it's expensive, but it would still be more efficient than building desalinization plants. No one will miss the water, and will hardly be noticeable to the ecosystem. It may even help keep flooding down during the spring thaw.

[@factsoverfeelings1776]

"A years long drought". That region (The American Southwest" once went through a 200+ yr long drought.

[@RexBennett-w5v]

Another pipe dream. The only feasible way is to pump water from the missouri river right before the 4 upper dams at flood stage relocating some flood water away from the affected area to where it is needed.

[@kevinmccabe7263]

The end of the video is all that needs to be said. Moving water from one half of our country to another is just not an option. You'd literally be taking tens of billions of cubic feet of water per year that currently drain into the Atlantic and redirect it to drain into the pacific. There is no possible way to map the full ramifications of that.

[@robertreznik9330]

In less than 20 years Texas will be needing more water with 50 million people. A pipe heading west through this area could supply much of their future needs. Most do not know that a 24" pipe is much too small to transport much water over hundreds of miles.

[@brianbassettnumber1]

It needs to be an underground network to preclude as much evaporation as possible and include massive storage cisterns.

[@davidcawrowl3865]

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

[@rosemulet]

Wrong. The water pipeline would be a lifesaver, and a HUGE net good for all.

[@kennethheying7845]

No good deed should go unpunished. The Mississippi is drying up. If it was full and we worried about flooding i would go along with it. The south west has been warned about the water problem for years. They ignored it like many other warnings. I can't feel sorry for people who ignore the little boy, crying wolf.

[@ophs1980]

The Mississippi River is so low right that barges are getting stranded. They've suspended traffic above Memphis. Any project to move water to the Southwest and California would only encourage growth in an area that can't supply it's current population with water. Not gonna happen.

[@coolpiraterapstar]

How about desalinization? It seems not many places outiside of Israel and Singapore invest in it

[@elizabethdavis1696]

I have a great video idea for you What if king gilette the guy who made modern safety razors constructed a city he wanted called metropolis and had it powered by damming Niagara Falls

[@wildgrem]

2023 US Military budget: 1.73 Trillion. I think they can afford a pipeline.

[@casiandsouza7031]

Redirecting scarce fresh water is dangerous. An ocean to ocean canal could change the land. It's building should be accompanied by building a rail that will transport the dirt to extend the coast into peninsulas. It should be located south of cities on either coast giving the cities room to expand.

[@ravneiv]

Get your own water. There are simply too many people living there.

[@mattalley4330]

This will not be popular, but I feel like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to touch on is overpopulation in this region. There is no one single solution to this problem but population control should be one piece of the puzzle. What happens when the major reservoirs like Mead and Powell get so low that dams cannot produce electricity and places like Phoenix and Vegas are facing summer temps without air conditioning?

[@brushylake4606]

Yeah, they've solved that by making LA uninhabitable for middle class families. Unfortunately, they're all moving to Texas and Florida.

[@stickynorth]

The USA really needs better water resource management in the Southwest. Period. Especially when it comes to agriculture... Even just using half of what's considered Best Practices today would help... That and subsidizing the production of crops that either aren't needed or aren't profitable without huge subsidies... And we all know which ones I mean...

[@rednekokie]

It would be far easier and a lot cheaper to simply enlarge the Rio Grande rather than pump the Mississippi River uphil 1500 feet in order to get the water to the Southwest.

[@BW022]

You don't build a pipeline from the Mississippi basin to California. You build it from some of the eastern flows up back into the upper Colorado basin states and down to New Mexico and Arizona. Those then take less water from the Colorado instead and leave it for California. This said, still expensive and you have to get everyone on the eastern Rockies to agree to getting less water in their tributary rivers. Considering these are some of the most fertile areas on the US and you're sending the water to one of the least fertile areas, it's not a great ecological (or financially) helpful ideas. Best way... move the people from California to mid-western states which have the water.

[@davidcawrowl3865]

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

[@kr46428]

For domestic/household water uses, I wonder how much water could just be recycled in "closed loop" system. We already have water treatment facilities -- why not feed one end into the other? Doesn't solve the agricultural problem, but it would help.

[@Rationalysis]

shameless self-promotion for the first 2 and a half minutes skip here 2:40

[@protectork9831]

Thank you

[@filrabat1965]

Diverting Miss River water to anywhere would hurt the ecosystem of the Gulf Coast. Think of how much sediment the river dumps into the Gulf, along with the Atchafalaya River (a huge distributary of the other said river).

[@KennethSaul]

I still think it should be possible to feed the top of the Colorado River from the Mississippi or Missouri rivers.

[@viking_fisherman]

What if we quit approving new building permits, increase the price of water, and develop more strategies to discourage people from moving to areas of the country that don’t have the ability to support them?! We don’t have a water shortage problem! We have s water over-use problem! There are so many places around the country with plenty of water and other resources to support much larger populations. It’s insane to continue to allow these dry areas of the country with insufficient water supplies to continue to become more and more populated! Don’t spend unknown billions on water pipelines! Encourage people to move to those areas where that water would be pumped from, where there’s an excess of water! This is pure idiocy!!!

[@TheL0wner]

what if people living in deserts took the hint and moved elsewhere, rather than draining resources from others.

[@rawideasinc]

Its considered in the 2009 copy right that contains the Green NewDeal . We need huge reservoirs out west filled to grow energy on interstates. Cannabis is the GND in a nut shell .

[@rahkinrah1963]

Build the 1,200 mile pipe in the median of I-10.

[@clasicradiolover]

Desalination. You have the pacific ocean right there. North Carolina has at least one such plant. If you're going to live in an irrigated desert you need to use technology

[@eliasthienpont6330]

What a stopid idea. Google 'NYC water tunnel 3' The biggest water tuhhel ever built and it only covers 2/3 of NYC. And by the way... the Mississippi river is almost dry by that point. You better forget about NYC water tunnel 3 tunnels and apply that money to desalinization.

[@Patrickschlehuber]

White River looked to actually be the Arkansas river on your map.

[@yetimelly523]

Columbia River pipeline to southwest makes more sense.

[@tj7870]

GFYS!

[@plant.hacks.4.ur.environment]

It’s probably be cheaper to build desalination plants on the coast and bring the water up to those areas than taking water from the Mississippi

[@andrefalksmen1264]

Not even close, desalination is three orders of magnitude, three hundred times, more expensive than pumping water.

[@brushylake4606]

OR, California could build a couple nuclear power plants and some big desalination plants and use the Pacific for their water needs.

[@danf4447]

if land is expensive there is this thing called imminent domain that has been used for years. and years.

[@edenloreto311]

Taking water from the Mississippi only at flood stage wouldn’t harm anything. It’s what California is doing with the Sites project.

[@charlielyden5756]

Lol love how 80% of this video is the same as the Great Lakes one

[@petterbirgersson4489]

You can begin with decking over the canals, then the evaporation would lessen. .

[@ericroe]

I find it funny when the solution from people outside of California is always conservation. But ~85% of the water in California is used for agriculture, so what you are really saying is California should stop feeding the rest of the country and only produce products for Californians. So much water could be saved if we didn’t provide the rest of the US with our crops. How do you think you get fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables in the cold harsh winter in the rest of the US? They come from California. The California water problem is really an entire United States problem. And finally a huge public works project would be great for the US Economy. Adding a few huge reservoirs along the line to store excess water would be a great way to help stabilize floodwater.

[@worldoneprofessorjamesperr2417]

There ain't no water in the Mississippi River you might want to watch the news

[@jonathanthink5830]

I am so glad we have much less bean counting during the era of interstate freeways..... we would still be arguing over environment impacts, costs, feeling, gender, race, .....

[@7oh2TrailBlazin]

Being A Vegas Native. The desert is no place for agriculture. Its simply time to move on. Oklahoma here i come

[@ulysseslee9541]

This like the USA version of "South-to-North Water Diversion" project, that originally in China.

[@DavidWestwater-vq6qy]

Somehow I have feelings for that would have bad consequences. Maybe have conservation I mean they're grown almonds in California. That is one of those water-intensive crops that you can grow.

[@JohnBrown-pw3bz]

Good message. you talked about the agriculture industry that is here in Arizona. Would you do a study on the the ownership of farmland in Arizona and discuss where the crops are going we in Phoenix have noticed that Saturday Arabia has large farms to the east they are on right on top of a large aquaphor so basically they are sucking the water out of our ground turning it into cattle and crops and shipping them to Saudi Arabia since they have no water supply. I'm new to your show but love the subject and I'm definitely a subscriber now

[@thetype85]

Los Angeles DOES NOT get its wafer from the colorado!! LA gets its water from the eastern Sierra and the Owens valley!

[@yetimelly523]

Why would the pipeline go to AZ. Easier to go to Green River Colorado that flows into the Colorado River.

[@reidbronson6358]

Not an expert. However, isn't the Mississippi River running very, very low right now? Won't New Orleans get really screwed?

[@fredlawson8008]

Oh what a nice idea, let’s do it!

[@markjacksonturner6462]

agriculture in Arizona is not a culprit. It is a means of living.

[@nickheffernan6923]

3 minutes to get to the actual video is ridiculous

[@timothykeith1367]

What if half of the homes in Arizona were built with rainwater harvesting? The only pipeline which would be efficient to operate would be a level tunnel so that it didn't require massive pumping. The tunneling system might take 30 years to construct, but the water would flow naturally like an underground river. Tunneling crews could simulaneously begin in 20 or more locations. If Elon Musk wants to put his Boring Company to work, this could be his grand achievement. Engineers would chose the route based on the softness of the underground rock rather than mountain passes. The network of distribution tunnels in the west would probably exceed the long route to the west. Instead of using it as surface water, pump the water into western aquifiers and store it naturally. Just find someone else to pay for it! It makes as much sense as colonizing Mars. Lol.

[@casienwhey]

This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. I don't believe people have any idea how much it would cost - not just to build but also to operate. Water is very heavy and difficult to move when working against gravity. If you don't believe that try picking up a gallon of water. Moving water over the rocky mountains would take vast amounts of energy. Where would that come from? Also, is there really a water shortage when these states have golf courses, outdoor lawns, swimming pools? It's more like misplaced priorities.

[@ronvosick8253]

Tunnel the water through the mountains.

[@brandonguild1666]

Wouldn't raising the water over a mile elevation also be tricky?

[@michael_swardh]

25 billions would not be a problem.

[@robertknight9506]

The cost of this would be losing New Orleans

[@rickymarcrom5059]

Gee I wouldn't think of leaving a natural water source alone

[@lofm6213]

Considering the amount of money we spend on military, America can easily afford to do this project and it would be a long term, profitable investment.