Pipeline could bring Missouri River water to arid states

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Even as drought-stricken Midwestern states squabble over diminishing water supplies in the region, a new federal-state study raises the idea of constructing a 670-mile pipeline to divert water from one of the Mississippi’s major tributaries to help seven arid states in the West.

For two years, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have been considering ways to provide more water for the growing populations in the West. A plan scheduled for release later this month will include a proposal for a pipeline to ship water west from the Missouri River, along with a number of less ambitious options.

The pipeline proposal, which would cost an estimated $11.2 billion and take 30 years to complete, is expected to intensify the debate over how to ease one growing region’s shortages without harming the interests of others.

Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Dan DuBray said the pipeline idea is in the very early stages, a long way from reality.

“The idea of constructing conveyances to move water resources between other basins and the Colorado has been raised before and was once again submitted as an idea in this process,” DuBray said. He said the proposal will be evaluated, but that the agency doesn’t view it as “among the most practical or cost-effective proposals submitted.”

Any plan for diverting significant amounts of water from the Missouri would encounter opposition from some in the Midwest given the drought and competition for water resources.

The Missouri River flows from Montana to Missouri, and provides drinking water, recreation, hydropower and irrigation in seven states. The drought has left river levels so low that shipping companies are warning that barge traffic downstream on the Mississippi could come to a standstill by the end of the year. States on the Mississippi are calling for the release of more Missouri River water into the Mississippi, but northern states are objecting.

Some conservation organizations argue that future water demand in the West should be met with conservation and policies that increased water reuse. Those measures are the focus of the more modest options in the plan. Constructing a major pipeline is “absurd,” said Jason Bane of the Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates.

But some western interests are pressing for more aggressive steps.

Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said the nation must keep an open mind to a variety of ideas for meeting water needs, including pipelines that could provide a dual benefit: Removing excess water in flood-prone areas like the Midwest during high water periods, and transporting it to areas like the West that have an urgent need for water.

The Missouri River pipeline plan notes that water wouldn’t be diverted during droughts. But Bane said if both the West and Midwest are in drought, water battles would almost certainly ensue.

More like this story

linoge 5 months, 1 week ago

The time is fast approaching when a higher value will be placed upon water than on petroleum.

makeUthink 5 months, 1 week ago

So someone wants the Midwest to give up their water, so that the Western states can continue to grow without proper planning? They have plenty of water, it's not our fault they choose to use it to help the Sacramento Delta Smelt fish have a better habitat rather than provide water for their farmers and cities. I left the west coast because of overcrowding. I say no way! Not one drop!

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 1 week ago

Draw the water from Louisiana near New Orleans and pipe it where ever they wish! Rob

JCLifer 5 months, 1 week ago

Good idea!

asb 5 months, 1 week ago

A good idea, but with some things to note: It's further, and lower, so the pumping costs would be higher. The Mississippi is also a lot funkier at its mouth then further up the basin. Still, I would think, if this is to work at all, the larger and more stable flows at NO would make it a better source. Actually, the flood diversion a bit upstream of NO would be better yet.

Littleinvestor 5 months, 1 week ago

Build it and they will come. Don't build it, and they won't. There will be outward migration from the driest southwestern states if they are short of water and I think that would be fine. You can only fool Mother Nature for so long.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 1 week ago

Take it from where ever the river would not be compromised by salt from the Gulf! Leave the Missouri alone! The one driving force has and always will be money! The way I understand it they want to pipe some of it over the Continental Divide? Why don't they use the sacramento, snake, columbia, or the colorado! The Colorado runs at a trickle by the time it gets to Mexico? Wonder why? Rob

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

Pumping water across basins is not an intelligent option. If your resources are overburdened and will not support things as they have been done, then things need to be done differently using available resources. Too many cows? Smaller herds, or switch production to an alternative. Too many acres to irrigate? Plant fewer acres or plant different crops. Too many people? Implement conservation measures, put a surcharge on any amount exceeding necessity, compensate those using less than a baseline to encourage such behavior. Too many water intensive industries? Make water reclamation from wastewater part of the design.

If, after all of that, then cap and trade. Western water laws are, and ever have been a boondoggle. They're not our problem, and we shouldn't be party to the results of a poorly conceived and continued policy.

RobHunterJohnson 5 months, 1 week ago

I read that a pipe line would start around KC and go west along I-70? I resided in the Gallatin Valley of Montana winter of 78-79, along every creek or stream there were sluice boxes diverting water for Agriculture. All one must do is look at how badly the western states have mismanaged the Colorado to tell them NO. If the area drains into the MIssouri that could be more acceptable, but no further, even North Dakota wanted to irrigate the Red River Valley with the Missouri River water a few years ago? Rob

eileen10 5 months, 1 week ago

Since it would take thirty years to complete by then the states mentioned could go from drought to lots of rain so why even bother.

asb 5 months, 1 week ago

This will not happen. Not one of the Missouri river basin states would support it, and they have a lot of Senators between them. It's a moot question with only one answer. On the other hand, if the price of water went up to $60 a barrel, maybe a deal could be . . .

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune