Drought in the West

I've replaced all 3 of ours. Oldest is now over 10 years old. The newest is about 2.

 

Lake Granby is (basically) the headwaters of the Colorado.

Would it stand to reason that pumping water from the Great Lakes region to there (large reservoirs make great buffers) and then letting nature/gravity handle the rest of the flow to the pacific via the colorado thus no additional work needed on the west side of the rockies?

 

Long ago I had access to a water free toilet that used no energy and turned the waste into a small amount of dry sterilized odor free “ash” that you could toss in the trash or if feeling environmental add around trees or into a compost pile not used for food production.

Sadly those are illegal unless you are the DNR or parks department

I provided that clickbate level article because it’s to the point but…

Fresh water found under oceans is not a localized phenomenon, it’s been found since the 1940’s all over the world including in very strange places and the most recent articles state that scientists do not know the actual source in the case of NJ, some theorize it’s from the bottom sinking during the last ice age but carbon dating and other techniques disagree with that idea by millions of years. It also appears to be expanding and venting fresh water into deeper portions of the ocean which indicates it is not a motionless relic and has a flow pattern like everything else on the planet.

It’s an active topic of interest that is gaining momentum to legitimately study so maybe we will learn more in the upcoming decade.

Wisconsin and surrounding Great Lakes states are already fighting with each other to limit water access to the Great Lake watershed due to dropping well levels and localized water shortages (like door county)
My guess is we can run even the Great Lakes dry if we ship 1/3 of the countries water use out of the lakes to Cali, ignoring the trillions of dollars it would cost to drill through the Rockies and there are already lawsuits over environmental damage due to overuse of water here anyway
Plus much of the Great Lakes region has been in a water deficit for 25 years.

It will catch up with us eventually too, EVEN segments MN are in intense drought if we average out the 25 years of mostly underperforming rainfall levels regionally

US is getting dryer with the west coast being the focal point extending into the Midwest with lesser but notably extended periods of low rainfall

 

How long before we find invasive species from the Great Lakes in the Colorado?

 

The drought zone west of the Rockies extends far beyond the Colorado River basin, so your proposal would address only a portion of it. And water withdrawals of that size from the Great Lakes would require political approval of all the U.S. states and Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes, a major hurdle, especially when water flows are reduced there too.

The Colorado River appears to have legal water allocations of 16.5 million acre-feet/year (maf) (645 m^3/s) to the Upper and Lower Basins and Mexico, but average annual flow is now less than that. E.g. 2012 was about 7.5 maf at Lee's Ferry, 2000-2004 averaged 10 maf for an extended period. So 'fixing' the Colorado Basin water 'shortage' this way would require an initial capacity of at least 6 maf/year, with provisions for expansion if the drought patterns keep trending worse.

Lake Superior has a pool elevation of about 600 feet. Lake Granby is 7684 feet higher. Simply lifting that much water from Lake Superior to Lake Granby will require 5.4 gigawatts (GW), or 6 standard nuclear plants (allowing 10% down time for maintenance).

That doesn't count the power lost to friction in pipes and canals. This proposed aqueduct would be at least 820 miles long. Comparing to the Colorado River Aqueduct supplying water to a good portion of Southern California, that 242 mile line appears to lose 2.74 feet per mile to friction (1617 feet of actual pump lifts, but net gain of only 955 feet between storage pools). The same friction flow slope applied to this proposed aqueduct would require another 2240 feet of lift, adding more than 1.5 GW of additional pumping. So now we are at 7 GW of pumps, or (with scheduled down time) 8 standard nuclear power plants.

When water customers see the bill for all this, they WILL greatly improve their resource efficiency to avoid needing to pay for it.

 

There are areas of Australia that charge a buck a gallon for tap water

One Aussie was complaining about it on another forum since his water bill was close to 2 grand and was wondering how to cut water use on clothes washing, dish washing etc

My comment was to use paper plates, use a composting toilet and smell like a Frenchman
He didn’t like my suggestion

Based on his response I’m guessing it takes a lot of $$$$ cost before anyone even thinks of changing behavior

 

It looks like some single-flush toilets are now down to 0.8 gallon, apparently the same as the better dual-flush models on their smaller flush.

But I think a higher priority should be to get the remaining legacy 3.5 and 5 gallon old units replaced by newer 1.6 or 1.28 gallon models. There are plenty that flush better than typical old-era water hogs, so nobody (except a certain celebrity who doesn't get enough fiber) needs to flush "10 to 15 times".

Half the population could benefit from modern urinals needing just 0.125 gallon (0.5 liter) per flush, but finding extra space for them in most homes would be difficult. And they probably could cover significantly less than half of residential reduced volume flushes.

 

I remember growing up that the c-1900's school that my mother went to was being demo'd on the inside to convert into some kind small, snooty patio homes.....or at least as snooty as my beloved home state of Indiana gets.
My mom had three children.
All boys, and she often used the old line about thanking GOD that she only had three boys to worry about....

My day, who was the city electrical inspector, the owner, foreman, and three construction members all tried to figure out how to get a urinal out of the old school because, when asked, my mom wanted one installed in a bathroom at our house.

...she had to settle for a 1920's era school desk and some door knobs instead..

Despite the fact that I live where we get 60+ inches of rain a year, and water is IN NO WAY a problem, we have "Algure" toilets, two rain barrels, low water use dishwasher and washing machines and generally practice good stewardship of our potable water.

However (comma!!!)
I am a proud USN veteran with 10 patrols, 30+ survey missions, and 2 one-year-long overseas deployments, mostly living in tents.

I drill out ALL of my lo-flo 'Algore' shower heads and I enjoy taking guilt-free showers that I STILL do not take for granted!!!!

 

Perhaps people need to stop building golf courses and turf lawns in deserts?

Yes, many places already have some limits on turf yards in the SW, but the amount of wasteful water use is still ridiculous.

As others have said, droughts happen almost everywhere. To solve these issues, which will happen more and more frequently, we have to learn to conserve, even when there isn’t an immediate need.

 

I may need to think of an alternative to a turf lawn in west central Indiana.

It's been that way since 1928, but this year nothing is keeping it from being overrun with other stuff that's I presume, hardier.

None of that stuff is very attractive though, so it's not like I can just say "ok, my ground cover is that"....

 

@fuzzy1 thanks for the gigawatts in #46.

Let's say it gets built. A power interruption would stop the flow. Then it reverses and Lake Granby siphons back into Lake Superior .

Tasty Rocky Mtn trout get a long dark ride before before delighting Lake Superior fishermen. Fisherfolk. Fish-catching people.

It is something of a fishing destination in Colorado

 

One season?

It seems more likely that Colorado fisherfolk should be ready to replace their trout recipes with recipes for Asian ("flying") carp.

Besides flying carp and zebra mussels, there are plenty of other invasive species in the Great Lakes that could possibly use this path into the Colorado:

Invasive Species in the Great Lakes | US EPA

 

So you're saying there's still a chance.....

The California aqueduct needed two power stations and a cement plant built just for the project. The power it consumes to this day for those three lifts over the mountains would be a really good benchmark.

The obvious solution is put the final Granby dump/valve station above lake level with a spillway leading down into it. The California aqueduct does similar at its destination.

A GREAT pictorial history here: https://waterandpower.org/museum/Construction_of_the_LA_Aqueduct.html

 

Computing a theoretical minimum is very easy. Achieving an actual result close to that is much tougher.

 

A relevant article today:

The Southwest’s most important river is drying up
The Colorado River irrigates farms, powers electric grids and provides drinking water to 40 million people. But as its supply dwindles, a crisis looms.

==============

Separately, I'd bet that if their legacy water allocation systems were discarded and replaced by:
(*) set minimum allocations to the environment;
(*) set minimum allocations to the tribes;
(*) a nominal amount (20 to 30 gallons (**) per person per day?) allocated to each resident for a nominal monthly fee;
(*) all others (including residential overages) pay market rates for the remaining water,

... then their water "shortage" would end very quickly, as some commercial and agricultural users of very large amounts of cheap legacy water drop out for economic reasons, and everyone (***) else pays more attention to their water efficiency.

But the political bickering would be enormous.


(**) potentially shrinking slightly in the future, as typical appliance efficiencies improve.

(***) Most of them, at least. Some holdouts such as the Aussie described in a previous post may persist in consuming large amounts, but at least they'll be paying equitable prices for the privilege of doing so.

 

There is also an international (water) treaty with Mexico which would need to be renegotiated or abrogated.

 

I think they are currently allocated 1,500,000 acre-feet per year. Instead of abrogating it, include it among the first pair of lines. Apply the free market pricing just to our domestic side.

They probably deserve some more than that, at least until the total river flow shrinks more than it already has.

 

For people looking for modern water efficient appliances such as toilets, here are some resources:

EPA WaterSense: WaterSense | US EPA

Saving Water Partnership: Saving Water Partnership | Seattle and participating water utilities

MaP Toilet Testing: Home | MaP Toilet Testing

 

Future planning also needs to consider expected (needed!) electricity production from letting this water go downstream. 'Glen Canyon' and 'Boulder' together maximally provide 3.4 gigawatts, and others along the way add a bit. Total <4 GW I suppose.

This system in next few decades may have less-than-desired flow. The flow it will provide is all that future planners can plan with.