Grand Canal Scheme or North American Water and Power Alliance - Can it solve water problems in US

Hi,

First things first I used the search tool and there is no posting on ATS regarding GRAND CANAL SCHEME.

A couple of months ago I came across a GRAND CANAL SCHEME ir basically stands for Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal. The main objective is to divert large quantities of water into Lake Huron and buil a Dyke on James Bay, Canada and seperate it from Hudson Bay. The water can then be diverted southwards towards US.

The result will be large quantities of Fresh Water being diverted in to Great Lakes, as the great lakes will be used as a giant storage facility and from there on a system of canals will be built taking water to all across US.

On the other hand the NAWPA scheme envisions that Rivers in Alaskabe diverted to lower US states through Canada via ROCY MOUNTAIN TRENCH. The water is ti diverted to headwaters of Colorado river. While the primary objective is to generate more Hydroelectricity another use will be to increase the availability of fresh water and its use by lower US States.

And Now I pose my questions to ATS members

Q1. Both Projects were Concived in 1950 and 1960's however due environmental movements, NIMBY (Non in my Backyard) and due to budgetry cutbacks goverments of both US and Canada retreated on the project implementation. If both projects were to be implemented again what will be the costs involved and what steps will be needed by Govenments of US and Canada to get the ball rolling ?

Q2. But now what we have is a patchwork of a netwok of canals and river diversions that is not solving the problems of getting water to severely water stressed cities and towns in Sothern US (Nevada, Arizona, Texas, California) so if both projects are reactivitated can they reliastically solve the water problems?

Q3 Since 1950 - 1960 since has progressed and there may be techniques avaliable now that can mitigate any environmental damage but still keeping in mind that there may be unavoidable costs will such costs be greater than the project benefits?

Q4 Can these two projects financed by the mix of Private and Govt sector and undertaken on a national scale create much needed employment and help economies of both US and Canada?

Links
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

(Please allow the following 2 links to load, they are very informative)
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/summary.htm

Other Links
waterwars.wordpress.com...

www.polarisinstitute.org...

www.applet-magic.com...

aquadoc.typepad.com...

Please I ask all ATS members to post their views and how the 2 projects can be further improved and their scope expanded.

My only request is that please do not inflame each other or troll all this infighting has lead to the present state of affairs while everyone has his/her notion of good and bad but discussing them in a rational manner can lead to masterpieces while continuing along will lead to a point of no return.

(Mods Please move to right discussion board if needed)



Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

How about going a bit further Linking Missouri , Cloumbia, Snake and Colorado Rivers and liking Mississipi and Rio Grande Rivers. Also why not divers a part of the yearly flood waters of Missouri and Mississipi northwards into Great Lakes for storing fresh water to be used later and it may also relieve pressure on the flood defences.

What do AST members think of this?

Originally posted by lordvader
And Now I pose my questions to ATS members

Q1. Both Projects were Concived in 1950 and 1960's however due environmental movements, NIMBY (Non in my Backyard) and due to budgetry cutbacks goverments of both US and Canada retreated on the project implementation. If both projects were to be implemented again what will be the costs involved and what steps will be needed by Govenments of US and Canada to get the ball rolling ?

Environmental and soverienty costs are both astronomical. I would say NO right off the get go. Once we start depleting our water table we're screwed. It puts money into a select few peoples pockets and damn the rest. This will NOT help Canada in any way as a country and it will NOT help the people in Canada.

Q2. But now what we have is a patchwork of a netwok of canals and river diversions that is not solving the problems of getting water to severely water stressed cities and towns in Sothern US (Nevada, Arizona, Texas, California) so if both projects are reactivitated can they reliastically solve the water problems?

No, they can't realistically solve the problems. US industry that uses far too much water should cut back on water consumption and subsequent pollution. Find a better way to process the pollution and recycle your own water.

Q3 Since 1950 - 1960 since has progressed and there may be techniques avaliable now that can mitigate any environmental damage but still keeping in mind that there may be unavoidable costs will such costs be greater than the project benefits?

There are no technologies at present that will mitigate or offset the environmental damage. Your talking about taking billions to trillions of gallons of water and moving them from one ecosystem to another. It's like we are expected to make a trade and there's nothing in it for us. Our ecosystem dies in the north and we get millions of acres of dead trees and no animals. The US, depending on the corporations and what they allow, will just consume and pollute the water they receive and maybe give a few percent to the American citizens. If you expect corporations to do anything other than increase their profit margins at the expense of everyone and everything, you're wrong.

Q4 Can these two projects financed by the mix of Private and Govt sector and undertaken on a national scale create much needed employment and help economies of both US and Canada?

We will run out of oil to power vehicles before this kind of project could be completed. Sure you'll get a few thousand people employed for a few years, but the damage done will be unfathomable. The US corporations consistently use up their resources and pollute everything to the point that citizens are dying from cancers and chemical poisons and the government doesn't do a damn thing. This is the US corporate track record, they have a scorched earth policy, they don't care! I don't want Canada to be tied into an agreement where the US just uses us up and then spits us out like they do with their own citizens.

So, NO, NO, NO, NO.

I would much rather welcome US citizens to live in Canada and help maintain and defend Canada against US and other corporations and governments.

Cheers - Dave

Bad idea, too expensive to do. It would be environmental disaster.

There was another project i remember from those days. it was to build a large water pipeline from Alaska to the western US.
one part i remember was they wanted to pipe the water to Panamint valley Calif (just west of Death Valley)and use this large desert valley as a water storage lake.

The plan was to replace the water from Owens valley that LA was using and turn large areas of the Calif desert into farm land.
This would have caused climate change in the Calif desert from all the evaporation from the desert farm land and new large lake.

I'm totally against using the Great Lakes to irrigate the deserts in the south west. The Corp of Engineers has a history of screwing up the environment. If those farmers out west need water, let them move to an area where it is plentiful. Don't turn my region into a desert because they need the water out west. It sounds about as good as that plan they had in the fifties to use nuclear bombs to clear a shipping channel in the arctic. Idiotic in my opinion.

It's simple really. if the land can't support you then you shouldn't be there. State rights does not mean because we have lots of water you can have it

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
I'm totally against using the Great Lakes to irrigate the deserts in the south west. The Corp of Engineers has a history of screwing up the environment.

And we in the desert southwest are against sending large amounts in solar power to the northeast US. we might trade though. what do you have to trade. water maybe,