the agreement could be an "Excess Water Agreement" meaning 'no excess, no water'.

And bottled water is a multi billion dollar business so even if Canada just nationalized all water and bottled the excess the citizens could make the profits that Nestle now is.

Pipelines tend to be more long term economical especially if you believe these drought conditions will get worse in the mid west and the 'excess' will get greater coming in to Canadian river systems.

And that does not even consider the cost Canadians incur when that excess instead floods regions. SO you take a big cost and instead turn it in to a profit.

And we can be confident we would always have buyers in the US because the expansions in the dessert will continue as long as there is excess water to give them. So once we invest in the pipelines we would not have to worry about not ever having clients.

Explain them please.

And think about it and contrast them with new settlements being built in wetlands or deforested areas or grass lands? In my view, as long as you have excess water that needs a home, using desert is better than almost any other region to build homes on as the deserts have no use otherwise whereas every other area does. Some vital such as wetlands being lost.

It seems to me you may be unsure and maybe doubting one of the main planks of the accepted science of climate change which is the increasing thaw of the glaciers and the impact they will have on rising oceans.

Is that accurate to say that you are unsure or doubt the consensus science?

Because if you accept it then you accept we will continue to a have a growing amount of excess water in Canada and the risk of damaging floods will only get greater and greater.

So while Canada will try and have to figure out ways to protect and save our communities from disastrous flooding while containing the water until it can reach an Ocean, at the same time California, Utah, Nevada, and many more States will get drier and drier.

This is an obvious problem for both that could be a solution for both, while easing the rising ocean problem.

Heck I bet California alone with their budget would fund all pipeline costs and just offset that cost against the cost of the water they pay us for to offset the pending the disaster they are facing.

Canada is one win away monday, against haiti, from advancing to the final world cup qualifying group. I will you keep you all posted!

Yes, that would have to be part of it. And we'd need to be careful how we define excess.

I'm not sure what explanation is needed when the topic at hand is a clear demonstration of the problem. Building golf courses and subdivisions with lots of nice green grass in deserts requires a lot of water. Doing so in a region that is already short of water seems rather foolhardy, doesn't it?

Sure, desert isn't especially useful for other things, but I'm not aware of North America being especially short of land to build on. I think there's more than enough non-desert, non-wetland out there for centuries to come.

I have no clue where you'd get that idea from. I also don't know how you think rising sea levels are going to help with the problem, but I'm no expert in this field so perhaps you can share some insight.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas from, so hopefully you can share. If it's increasing glacial melt, I think we've missed the boat on that.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tudy-1.5680298

Again, I'm no expert on this stuff, but I don't think this would make the slightest difference.

The US uses 444,300,000,000 cubic metres, or 444.3 cubic kilometres of water per year.

https://www.worldometers.info/water/

Meanwhile, it takes 361.8 cubic kilometres of water to raise sea levels by 1 mm.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ea-level-rise/

I think the southwest would be something like 20% of US population, maybe 25%. Probably higher water use than the rest of the country...perhaps 30% then? So if Canada were able to supply enough water to double the southwest's usage, that would potential lessen sea level rise by just over 1/3 of a mm every year. And of course that assumes that the water doesn't still end up in the ocean, which much of it will after it is used. I don't think rising sea levels are much of a factor in this. Especially when you consider the environmental impact that would accompany such an increase in water use - I'd be surprised if it was a net negative in sea level rise.

All of the reading I've done on this has been quite educational, so thanks for that. The more I read and think about it, the more it makes sense that we probably have more than enough water to send there, but it might have to come from water flowing north normally, adding extra hurdles/expense. What I remain far from convinced of is that it would be economically feasible, and a good idea even if it was. And I don't think we have or can get nearly enough information to come to any definitive conclusion, but of course that doesn't mean we can't speculate.

"Foolhardily" really?

When he hits reply to my hypothetical (not so hypothetical) situation where rising sea levels and excess water (flooding) is a problem that is challenging (or going to challenge) the entire planet ...and you think, as he does the very idea of discussing it and fleshing it is foolish and instead should just be hand waved away dismissively as if going down that road is not worthy of discussion as he clearly did?

I am not with you there, even a little bit. Climate Change, with the stage we have let it get to, is going to require generation change and remediation as we have tipped certain areas (such as glacial melt) to a point where even if we do all the right steps now, it will take a long time to arrest and the problems will only grow.

there are already talks about how Ocean water pumping and desalination may have to be used and the cost of that is immense. And then you have the issue of 'what do you do now with all that fresh water'?

Imagine instead, a cheaper solution that is economical cheaper and instead of letting Canada's runoff hit the ocean , mix and get salted, to then be pumped back out to be desalinated, we just divert some of it.

I honestly cannot understand how the term foolhardy could even be mildly applicable here in this context???

Help with what problem? I cannot correlate what point I made that this question is asking me about?

I have that article bookmarked as i have read it.

It does not change a single thing said here and is not applicable at all.

It is addressing a distant future when the glaciers are gone or mostly gone and rivers start to dry up. We all know that is a likely future unless patterns change.

That changes nothing with regards to today and the problems of today, and the excess water issues and the lack of water issues. Quite simply, we have too much water in some places and not enough in others and having it deposit in the Ocean is problematic.

If you are thinking perhaps, if we do not divert the runoff it preserves the glaciers longer for Canadians, that would be wrong. If you are thinking perhaps we could store it for our own future use that too would be wrong.

I can't tell you how much I hate these type of arguments.

The 'the problem is so big and this incremental step won't fix it, so instead do nothing'.

I absolutely know diverting Canadian runoff will not be a fic to sea rising and not even close.

That is why you can google all sorts of scholarly articles about "theoretical desalination and removal of sea water' and 'building draw bridge type dam structures (as Italy already has) and so many other things.

It will almost be certain that mankind will either just accept it and lose a massive amount of current landmasses around the world at shorelines or we will have to take on some monumentous efforts to offset.

Regardless of all that is the fact that TODAY increasing water runoff continues to be a challenge for Canada and increasing drought a very bad problem for much of W.United States and keeping that runoff from the OCean (while not a solution) is an incremental step in the right direction.

A literal win/win/win.

And if it still means mass desalination, shore line protection and other efforts must be undertaken in the future, that changes nothing. The diverted Canadian water would still be of great value and you need a place to put such masses of water unless you want to create vast new lakes also eating up landmass and creating other issues. You have one place with an insatiable thirst, desert communities which could be part answer to that problem potentially? That is all I am saying 'potentially' as I know that issue would have to explored in much greater detail, but i simply think hand waving it as "foolhardy" is ... foolhardy.

Why stop at just 3 wins? I know you could only get to 3 wins when you were ending socialist healthcare in Canada, but surely you can think bigger Cuepee! We can fix flooding in Edmonton by partnering with China to ship water through the arctic to Arizona so the kids can have water when they play sports (unless they are trans of course). What could go wrong!?! Win/win/win/win/win.

Im not sure what good it does to mock him on an interesting conversation. Canada relies still on resource revenue and water is a resource. We have areas in Edmonton and I assume Calgary does as well that re labeled 1-25, 1-50, and 1-100 years flood areas that are seeing floods more often the damage costs billions and its governments that are doing the bailouts

Actually areas like Las Vegas, Phoenix and St George golf courses can only use reclaimed water and the fines are hefty if they try and use regular water.

Sadly shipping water via pipeline may never happen as

• We have tons of it and the USA would love it
• Government could reap the revenues
• creates thousands of job
• May help reduce flooding in certain cities

The big problem is spills? Who will clean up those spills

It be an interesting campaign issue for a Alberta Premier to run on

uke, the Professor cries about 'tone policing' when people point out he is a troll always trying to engage in Internet flame wars and not discussions.

Imagine still bringing up, as if some great gotcha and mocking statement that I suggested that if the US continues to try and thwart Canada's arctic claims that Canada can and should seek to come to agreements over shared water ways with the other main claimants Russia or China or other to get agreement. Something along the lines of 'if you do not contest our claims here, we will not contest yours there'.

And he thinks that dealing with China or Russia in any way is so wrong that he thinks the very idea is mock worthy.

A professor who is that ignorant and that dumb that does not understand that as the arctic melts these type of discussions or cooperation will become necessary unless Canada is prepared to fight, even with the US denying our claims too.

lozen as an FYI, and using your above post, when you quote a different person (2 or more people) within the same post you can make sure others know who was quoted by adding =Bobo Fett after the word QUOTE in the brackets. [QUOTE=Bobo Fett]

I think I've seen this from you before, where you get really focused on one word someone uses. I used the word foolhardy once, and it was in reference to one particular thing, and only one thing:

I in no way called anything you suggested foolhardy, nor do I think I handwaved anything away - I tried to give a pretty full response.

As for what I actually was calling foolhardy, reading it again I realize I missed an important point - I think it's foolhardy for them to be doing so without a plan in the region to address the water shortage. Lozen's point was interesting in that regard, but I think it only addresses a small part of the problem. The golf courses may be using reclaimed water, but I don't expect all the houses and businesses are. Also, if that reclaimed water could be used elsewhere were the golf courses not there, that's not much of a help either - but I don't know if that's the case.

Me neither. Sorry, seems I got confused about something there.

They don't really specify when the glacier melt will affect river levels, other than to say that it is within this century. Glaciers are much smaller now; I'm not sure what we should expect in the next 50 years as temperatures get warmer and potentially cause quicker melt, but of smaller glaciers. And of course warmer temperatures also mean less snow, and less snow pack to melt through the spring. I've just not seen evidence that river levels are expected to consistently rise, but perhaps it's out there. If you find anything, I'd be interested to read it.

But honestly, I don't think it's all that important, because I don't disagree with the overall point that we should have more than enough water to send some south - this is something I came to appreciate more, the more I read. The only thing it changes is where the water comes from. IE if the prairies are going to have a growing problem with flooding over the next 50 years, then the water can come from there. If they're not, the water may have to come from farther north. Simply a logistical issue.

No, definitely not what I was thinking. Both points sound bizarre.

Sure, but that wasn't my point. I probably didn't put enough emphasis on my last point there - "Especially when you consider the environmental impact that would accompany such an increase in water use - I'd be surprised if it was a net negative in sea level rise." This isn't a matter of it making so little impact that we shouldn't do it; I think it could actually be an overall negative impact.

First of all, when the water is "used", where does it go? I've yet to find a good source for information; this is the best I could do:

https://esemag.com/archives/how-much...-in-the-sewer/

It's a pretty small study, and groundwater complicates things, but it certainly appears that the majority of water we use still ends up in the ocean in the end.

And then we need to factor in the environmental impact of the added activity that comes with much greater water use, and how that affects the water levels. The environmental impact of building and maintaining the pipeline and accompanying infrastructure as well, which would be a massive project.

All that said, even if we take everything I said to the extreme and assume that there is zero benefit to Canada in terms of helping with flooding, and zero positive impact to sea levels, that doesn't mean this idea is a non-starter. The southwest US states need to get together and plan properly for their water use over the next 50-100 years, and a pipeline to Canada might be part of that - but only if it fits into a sensible and sustainable plan for the area.

I still have not heard one reason why Canada exporting water is a bad thing?

Cueppe thanks for the tip on double quotes

I still have not heard one reason why eating bananas is a bad thing?

The pipeline infrastructure can be handled. See below as the US has figured out the pipeline thing when they have a product they want to move.

The more interesting question is the one you raised about where does this water go.

In the desert scenario you would still have as much of a closed system as possible where it is recaptured and recycled and not eventually heading to an Ocean. But in a desert you will also have a lot of evaporation, which means potential down stream rainfall but also potentially much of it getting into the upper stratosphere and transported back to the arctic areas where it cools enough to drop back to start the process of rebuilding the ice sheets.

This is all theoretical talk I have only read very minor briefs on but if/when we finally arrest Global Warming/Climate change i've read some saying the return to normal will be through that type of evaporation, of the rising oceans and the return of that water into the atmosphere where it is stripped out in colder areas as it condenses and is trapped again in the form of ice. Part of the natural cycle.

Sure, no question it can be done, but there will be a financial cost that will impact the viability to at least some extent, and an environmental cost in its construction. Neither necessarily kills the idea.

Yeah, there's lots to think about here. And of course it goes beyond water. There are other environmental factors to building out in the desert, like the energy required to keep everyone cool. Of course solar energy can play a big part in that. The tendency for development to sprawl when we have lots of land, which means more cars and trucks out there driving many more miles - again, something that can be mitigated or even solved by electric vehicles. Feeding people where it's more difficult to grow food - more indoor farming?

I believe I'm just stating the obvious when I say that we need to start planning with all of these factors in mind, rather than cities, counties, states, provinces, countries just doing what works best for them in their own little (or even big) silos.

I was obviously very glib with my initial response, but I don't really understand the point of this statement/question other than to be dismissive of a somewhat in-depth discussion. You've not heard any reason because no one ITT is suggesting that exporting water is, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the reason, where it's coming from, and what the benefits are.

Lake Mead as its down 50% One big pipeline that dumps directly into Lake Mead

I almost feel this could be its own thread in politics The impending water shortage

Tonight on Global National

https://globalnews.ca/video/7946758/...in-western-u-s

This is a rather odd comment. I decided that it WASN"T worth engaging you on the healthcare 'debate' and ended that discussion. And I never even began engaging you on your water uh.....pipe dream. I have exactly zero interest in engaging you in a flame war about either topic. If you think a single extremely obviously sarcastic follow up after that meant I was trying to "engage" in a flame war with you about it then you are sadly mistaken.
Lol, I of course never suggested anything of the sort.

You are oddly obsessed with my profession while you continue to completely make up my positions. Particularly weird given how you are making up my positions on topics I'm deliberately not engaging you on. Please don't confuse me laughing at your hot takes with being able to write my positions in your imaginations like a tabula rasa. I haven't told you what my positions are.

This would be a much better idea than clogging the pipes in the Canada thread, so to speak.

Holy ****. I knew it was bad, but Lake Mead at historical lows in June is frightening. What's it going to be like in August or September?

This has been so obvious, for so long, people at some point are going to wake up and be mad as hell about this, as they should be. Obviously since I'm not living there I'm not sure how much planning and/or warning people has been going on, but it sure doesn't seem like it was sufficient.

This is a great example of how governments are not set up to be good long-term planners - no politician wants to be the one to make voters suffer short-term pain for long-term gain, so this is what you get.

Then you should jump in a time machine and find me on the Yahoo! boards 20 odd years ago: that was when I had the time or patience to pontificate to anonymous screen names about how Bush and Cheney are terrible and the Iraq war was nothing more than a fancy corporate handout. Sorry, but one liners are all you get. How's this: Spending money to ship water into a desert which is only going to get hotter and hotter as the decades go on is about as good an idea as spending money rebuilding homes built in flood plains or along the coast every 5 years.

Here's another problem with your idea: no big-money is going to invest in a pipeline that only springs into action when the prairies are getting flooded. If they're building that much infrastructure, they'll want a guaranteed flow, 24/7/365: which means they're tapping a lake. They're not going to pin their hopes on something as chaotic as a spring thaw.

ps: I mean, the political attack ads sell themselves: the vampiric Americans, draining Canada of our life blood... I'm sure this would go over well in BC.

pps: rising sea level? how does that come "into account" when deciding to pipe water to south-west US?

Las Vegas is the 2nd fastest growing city in the United States. The government is doing an excellent job, as long as the feasibility of the city in the long term isn't taken into account. It's a well known, well documented and well debated issue, but people manage to turn a blind eye to it: much like people living downwind from a dormant volcano.

Exactly.

In addition to the politicians I mentioned it earlier, it also comes down to residents' short term thinking as well. They have the water they need now, so all is good. If it becomes a problem for them personally in 20 years, they can move!

I don't say this to criticize anyone in particular; I've enjoyed many a trip to Vegas and California in my lifetime, which contributes to the problem. If people see a good opportunity in the southwest, it's hard to turn it down for a big problem that their individual actions on their own won't solve. The only way they solve this is if everyone gets together on it. My fear is it doesn't happen until they hit a massive crisis that makes individuals rise up and demand action, even if that action is going to mean some pain in the short to mid-term.

Small correction as uke did in mocking reply as if the idea is so beyond reasonable it only needs mocking. But then he did the same on the idea that Canada might need to engage in negotiations with others who have claims on the land masses and sea routes emerging in the arctic.

He takes the simplistic view that because Russia or China are bad actors we should not negotiate with them ever which i think is a childlike view. What his position means in reality is that when Russia or China claims a sea route or landmass that Canada also claims we must defend it through military conflict (ie. Falklands Island UK/Argentina) as an 'ability to hold and defend' is a recognized factor by the UN if negotiated settlements do not happen in areas of unclear jurisdiction.

And any sensible person knows Canada cannot hold or defend a thing versus Russia or China so it means giving up and walking away from all our claims, especially since the US is not supporting and instead has been trying to deny our claims which would be used by Russia or China to assert they have the right to 'take' them.

Oh yes I am fully aware as i had seen specials on that years ago.

It is, in large part (probably entirely) what inspired this idea for me many years ago about how Canada could help be a big fix for this massive and significant ongoing problem in the US midwest. That is where Canada's main pipeline should terminate with a secondary and third source elsewhere.

The cost of remediation efforts for the US (desalination being the one I see most talked about) is massive and yet the US will have to undertake them or just ghost town much of the West of the Country.

That means Canadian water (pipelines) should almost certainly be economical for them and a boon for us. A true win/win. And keeping water from the oceans is another win.

A simpleton may mock that but really this seems like such an obvious partial solution to at least explore.

uke you are simply dishonest.

Anyone can search my post history and see i have mentioned you being a professor exactly twice since you first brought it up to me. Framing that as an obsession is simply not a true statement. Not even close.

What you are doing in this thread and in others is called Flame War baiting or Trolling for a reaction.

I am engaged in regular discussions with others and in nothing controversial nor saying anything controversial and you pop in and drop a comment meant to do one thing and one thing only. Bait a reply that diverts from the discussion.

So you have your reply and we are engaging. That is the entire intent.

This is your M.O and I can quote you doing it in other threads.

And yes you absolutely did mock the very idea of Canada negotiating with Russia and China as if I said something mock worthy in suggesting that. You can try and disavow it now, but the quote history is there and again you simply are being dishonest when you realize you said something prior you no longer want to own.

OK some things you are missing or got wrong.

The excess water is at a PEAK in spring runoff but it happens all year long. The Rivers never stop, at any point in the year depositing water into the Oceans.

So perhaps that factor alone changes your view on the 'economic viability'?

Also and again, while you rightly keep mentioning the continuing need for water in desert communities, you seem to not be considering on the other hand that if you divert and capture all that excess water runoff, to keep it from going into the oceans you are going to have other massively growing problems. Storage and Use. You need some place to utilize the mass amount of excess water runoff.

These seem like two problems custom designed for each other.