It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solving southwest U.S. water shortage by water cap and trade?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Lake mead, the largest reservoir in the United States is being consumed at a far faster rate than flows down the river in an average year. To counter this imbalance, scientists are proposing a Cap and Trade system of interstate water trading.

hsn.com

Lake Mead, on the Colorado River, is the largest reservoir in the United States, but users are consuming more water than flows down the river in an average year, which threatens the water supply for agriculture and households; researchers suggest that to solve this imbalance, a water cap-and-trade system, successfully implemented in Australia, should be considered for interstate water trading


(Alternative source)
livescience.com
edit on 21-5-2012 by Daedal because: puncuation




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The cap and trade system may be ok for short-term fixes, but the underlying problem is the mismanagement of the resource. That means people have to reassess how they use water. I'm not just talking about the average family turning off the taps while brushing their teeth. Resorts, especially ski resorts put a pounding on water supplies...agricultural irrigation seems like a legitimate use of water but the corn crops of the midwest use water at an astonishing rate that is completely unsustainable. The biofuels mandate is a joke, especially when it can take up to 2138 liters of water to produce one liter of bioethanol.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Ever seen this bit of info?


The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWPA or NAWAPA, also referred to as NAWAPTA from proposed governing body the North American Water and Power Treaty Authority) was conceived in the 1950s by the US Army Corps of Engineers as a 'Great Project' to develop more water sources for the United States. The planners envisioned diverting water from some rivers in Alaska south through Canada via the Rocky Mountain Trench and other routes to the US and would involve 369 separate construction projects. The water would enter the US in northern Montana. There it would be diverted to the headwaters of rivers like the Colorado River and others. The water would generate hydro-electricity during its trip via dams. The water supply would double the total amount of fresh water available to lower 48 states with its major focus being on the western states. This would solve the water shortage problems of the west for the foreseeable future. The amount of water available would in fact be so great that some water would be left over for use by Mexico via the Colorado River (which is currently significantly depleted as it enters Mexico). The Corps of Engineers has studied this project and in the late 1950s and early 1960s this project was very close to realization. Washington State Senator "Scoop" Jackson was a significant sponsor and believer in this project. The project was opposed by public sentiment in Canada on the rare occasions it surfaced in print, though Canadian financier Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, was one of its backers and main promoters. Nonetheless, the Canadian position on free trade exempted water exports, in part specifically to pre-empt any attempted completion of Reisman's long-time pet project. Recently, there has been a resurgence in the effort to implement NAWAPA, headed up by Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouchePAC. [edit]See also


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Oh,I forgot,was going to post something,but cannot.
Instead I will post this.

water.usgs.gov...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I've got a solution-

Don't live in the middle of the frickin' desert.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


The NWAPA may be a good idea in theory, but it leaves me with some questions (I wish I had the answers).

What will be the environmental impact?
How do you get Canada on board? Compensation probably, but how much?
What type of compensation will Alaska receive?
Construction cost and who is going to pay for it? A legit concern considering the current (and foreseeable) economic landscape.
How will this hold up with continued global climate change altering snowfall and glacial melt? It may not be a factor now, but what about 50-60 years into the future? With a project of this magnitude, you certainly don't intend for it to be a short-term solution.

More water means more water people will feel entitled to waste. I still see good management as the foundation to a solution.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


when i saw the title Nawapa was the first thing I thought about all the reasons listed for NOT doing this are pure BS the real reason is CONTROL obviously.

you know there are actually water systems that take water out of the air what a breakthrough and they are VERY cheap,, except it is anything but a breakthrough the suppression of technology and control of the masses are just about the only thing our Gov cares about.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildbillsteamcock
reply to post by kdog1982
 


The NWAPA may be a good idea in theory, but it leaves me with some questions (I wish I had the answers).

What will be the environmental impact?
How do you get Canada on board? Compensation probably, but how much?
What type of compensation will Alaska receive?
Construction cost and who is going to pay for it? A legit concern considering the current (and foreseeable) economic landscape.
How will this hold up with continued global climate change altering snowfall and glacial melt? It may not be a factor now, but what about 50-60 years into the future? With a project of this magnitude, you certainly don't intend for it to be a short-term solution.

More water means more water people will feel entitled to waste. I still see good management as the foundation to a solution.


all of these are problems easily remedied... I dont understand what you mean by wasted water after water is used it doenst just disappear there is a cycle that water goes thru we have the same amount on earth now as we did 200yrs ago we as a human race are just too stupid to utilize our earths efficiency.
edit on 5/22/2012 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


That's why in the last few years most of Sothern California has implemented the "Toilet to Tap" not only do they recycle the water, but now they don't have to add anti-depressants to the water supply because they are already in there.... from peoples poopnpee

A Source

So just to throw it out there...

THE PROBLEMS

A. OC has a failing (shut down) nuclear power plant which used to supply to a good portion of Southern California....

B. Southern California has always had a water shortage problem....


POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Instead of wasting all this money on "toilet to tap" technology and the rehabilitation/reconstruction of San Onofre NPP, why not make a huge jump forward and design and build a huge Hydrogen Facility (isn't the by product of this process pure water?)


note to self : don't delete, just post it, don't delete, just post it, don't delete, just post it



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
But things are coming to a head.


The nation's food supply may be vulnerable to rapid groundwater depletion from irrigated agriculture, according to a new study by researchers at The University of Texas at Austin and elsewhere.


phys.org...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rtyfx
 


2 words: water catchment
and there is another thing (whose name escapes me at the moment) that draws a shocking amount of water from ambient humidity (even in a desert environment).

I don't (yet) live in the desert, but these are things that would be useful anywhere- especially for wildlife and irrigation.
There's a whole other world out there...

ETA @ to W1ll- woop, you mentioned it. I wouldn't call them average-Joe-cheap (about $1200 up), but considering water bills & water restrictions, worth consideration.
edit on 29-5-2012 by DogsDogsDogs because: Missed this




top topics



 
5

log in

join