Time to tap Canada's water riches
Alta_redneck @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:57 pm
Hey Zig, i just thought you'd be interested to see these before and after pics from last year
ziggy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:28 pm
Remember that trucker that went off the bridge and they didnt find his truck or body for about a week?
When the water on the Red Deer receded?
Think that was a year and a half ago.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:49 pm
Ziggy, if Canada allows the US to take water from Canada the word you people will use in almost every sentence to describe the deal in the future will be "raped".
Don't believe me? Do the deal and see.
Ripcat @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:08 pm
I'd love to canoe the mighty Colorado River from it's head waters to the ocean...err, wait a minute...it doesn't flow into the ocean anymore....
$1:
The lower course of the river, which forms the border between Baja California and Sonora, is essentially a trickle or a dry stream today due to use of the river as Imperial Valley's irrigation source. Prior to the mid 20th century, the Colorado River Delta provided a rich estuarine marshland that is now essentially desiccated, but nonetheless is an important ecological resource.
Many other rivers in California share the same fate.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:23 pm
Ripcat Ripcat:
I'd love to canoe the mighty Colorado River from it's head waters to the ocean...err, wait a minute...it doesn't flow into the ocean anymore....
Many other rivers in California share the same fate.
$1:
The lower course of the river, which forms the border between Baja California and Sonora, is essentially a trickle or a dry stream today due to use of the river as Imperial Valley's irrigation source. Prior to the mid 20th century, the Colorado River Delta provided a rich estuarine marshland that is now essentially desiccated, but nonetheless is an important ecological resource.
Many other rivers in California share the same fate.
True. The San Joaquin River typically ends at the Friant Dam and flows no further except when it is in flood stage.
The Owens River no longer makes it to Owens Lake - all of it flows to Los Angeles and the Owens lake bed on windy days is a swirling toxic soup of arsenic and silica. Los Angeles has proposed covering it with "organic compost" which means they want to dump their sewage sludge on the lake bed instead of sending it by rail to New Mexico to be incinerated. Nice.
Only one river that feeds Mono Lake is allowed to reach the lake unimpeded and the lake level has dropped 25 feet due to diversions.
Nevada's Lake Winnemuca no longer exists due to the Truckee and Carson rivers being entirely diverted from it.
Wherever there has been abundant water in California the urban powers of LA and San Francisco continue to press claims for it.
Without exception, every community that has sold water rights to these two cities has regretted the deal.
ziggy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:44 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Ripcat Ripcat:
I'd love to canoe the mighty Colorado River from it's head waters to the ocean...err, wait a minute...it doesn't flow into the ocean anymore....
Many other rivers in California share the same fate.
$1:
The lower course of the river, which forms the border between Baja California and Sonora, is essentially a trickle or a dry stream today due to use of the river as Imperial Valley's irrigation source. Prior to the mid 20th century, the Colorado River Delta provided a rich estuarine marshland that is now essentially desiccated, but nonetheless is an important ecological resource.
Many other rivers in California share the same fate.
True. The San Joaquin River typically ends at the Friant Dam and flows no further except when it is in flood stage.
The Owens River no longer makes it to Owens Lake - all of it flows to Los Angeles and the Owens lake bed on windy days is a swirling toxic soup of arsenic and silica. Los Angeles has proposed covering it with "organic compost" which means they want to dump their sewage sludge on the lake bed instead of sending it by rail to New Mexico to be incinerated. Nice.
Only one river that feeds Mono Lake is allowed to reach the lake unimpeded and the lake level has dropped 25 feet due to diversions.
Nevada's Lake Winnemuca no longer exists due to the Truckee and Carson rivers being entirely diverted from it.
Wherever there has been abundant water in California the urban powers of LA and San Francisco continue to press claims for it.
Without exception, every community that has sold water rights to these two cities has regretted the deal.
I dont think we have much of a choice,according to the first link posted the deal is allready in the works,with folks paying more for a liter of water at the 7-11 then a liter of gas I see a huge market here waiting to be tapped.
USCAdad @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:55 pm
ziggy ziggy:
I dont think we have much of a choice,according to the first link posted the deal is allready in the works,with folks paying more for a liter of water at the 7-11 then a liter of gas I see a huge market here waiting to be tapped.
The market is huge. It's most of the world. That doesn't change a thing. Alberta doesn't have the spare capacity to worry about it. It's a bit confusing understanding which part you don't get on this. It would be very ugly and uglier to stop once it really got going.
Sell all the two liter bottles you want. Knock yourself out.
Hardy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:01 pm
ziggy ziggy:
I dont think we have much of a choice,according to the first link posted the deal is allready in the works... I see a huge market here waiting to be tapped.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Ziggy, if Canada allows the US to take water from Canada the word you people will use in almost every sentence to describe the deal in the future will be "raped".
Don't believe me? Do the deal and see.
Don't believe me? Do the deal and see.
I see a huge market here, waiting to be raped.
ziggy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:02 pm
USCAdad USCAdad:
ziggy ziggy:
I dont think we have much of a choice,according to the first link posted the deal is allready in the works,with folks paying more for a liter of water at the 7-11 then a liter of gas I see a huge market here waiting to be tapped.
The market is huge. It's most of the world. That doesn't change a thing. Alberta doesn't have the spare capacity to worry about it. It's a bit confusing understanding which part you don't get on this. It would be very ugly and uglier to stop once it really got going.
Sell all the two liter bottles you want. Knock yourself out.
Well,the topic was about CANADIAN water,not Alberta's.
Starting to see the anti US bias here?
Us Canucks should be in this as a country,not province against province as you would seem to have others think.
USCAdad @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:08 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Well,the topic was about CANADIAN water,not Alberta's.
Starting to see the anti US bias here?
Us Canucks should be in this as a country,not province against province as you would seem to have others think.
Starting to see the anti US bias here?
Us Canucks should be in this as a country,not province against province as you would seem to have others think.
I thought Canadian resources were Provincial. I've never herd a conversation about Canadian oil as such without hearing what Easterners should do in the winter.
You have a bunch of folk here trying very hard to explain the reality of vicious water battles that you just really don't want to get started. You seem unable to hear this. Instead I get an anti-american label? So be it, I'm not so fond of what it's become. However, as far as water goes it would be as likely to be shipped to China or India as the US. Where it goes doesn't really matter to me.
ziggy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:30 pm
USCAdad USCAdad:
ziggy ziggy:
Well,the topic was about CANADIAN water,not Alberta's.
Starting to see the anti US bias here?
Us Canucks should be in this as a country,not province against province as you would seem to have others think.
Starting to see the anti US bias here?
Us Canucks should be in this as a country,not province against province as you would seem to have others think.
I thought Canadian resources were Provincial. I've never herd a conversation about Canadian oil as such without hearing what Easterners should do in the winter.
You have a bunch of folk here trying very hard to explain the reality of vicious water battles that you just really don't want to get started. You seem unable to hear this. Instead I get an anti-american label? So be it, I'm not so fond of what it's become. However, as far as water goes it would be as likely to be shipped to China or India as the US. Where it goes doesn't really matter to me.
Dont worry,we wont let you freeze.
Think were allready selling water to Singapore and a few other places but things may have changed the last few years.
And now im seeing an anti Alberta bias.
Hardy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:33 pm
Just did a little quick math. May not surprise Bart or USCAdad, but it helps put things into perspective for people who haven't lived in California.
Let's think of a really BIG body of water, say Williston Lake, the biggest one in BC. 251 km long, the world's largest reservoir until recently, and BC Hydro's crown jewels. If California used Lake Williston for a year, its level would drop by about 120 m, and by May it would be nothing more than a mudflat full of ponds. Or you could redirect the entire Fraser River to California, and that would take care of about 45% of their needs, if none evaporated enroute.
To put it in an Eastern context, California's consumption would drop Lake Erie's level by 40% in a year.
It's a lot of water.
grainfedprairieboy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:00 pm
Hardy Hardy:
Just did a little quick math. May not surprise Bart or USCAdad, but it helps put things into perspective for people who haven't lived in California.
Let's think of a really BIG body of water, say Williston Lake, the biggest one in BC. 251 km long, the world's largest reservoir until recently, and BC Hydro's crown jewels. If California used Lake Williston for a year, its level would drop by about 120 m, and by May it would be nothing more than a mudflat full of ponds. Or you could redirect the entire Fraser River to California, and that would take care of about 45% of their needs, if none evaporated enroute.
To put it in an Eastern context, California's consumption would drop Lake Erie's level by 40% in a year.
It's a lot of water.
Let's think of a really BIG body of water, say Williston Lake, the biggest one in BC. 251 km long, the world's largest reservoir until recently, and BC Hydro's crown jewels. If California used Lake Williston for a year, its level would drop by about 120 m, and by May it would be nothing more than a mudflat full of ponds. Or you could redirect the entire Fraser River to California, and that would take care of about 45% of their needs, if none evaporated enroute.
To put it in an Eastern context, California's consumption would drop Lake Erie's level by 40% in a year.
It's a lot of water.
Sure, but you're talking about a population bigger than Canada's growing a significant portion of our fruits and vegatables using irrigation. It puts it into perspective but I'd bet dollars to donuts Canadians are still using more water and at a higher per capita.
USCAdad @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:39 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Sure, but you're talking about a population bigger than Canada's growing a significant portion of our fruits and vegatables using irrigation. It puts it into perspective but I'd bet dollars to donuts Canadians are still using more water and at a higher per capita.
And I bet a lot of Californians would buy Canadian produce once the water runs out.... and Prius' sell well in Fort McMurray.
ziggy @ Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:52 pm
Hardy Hardy:
Just did a little quick math. May not surprise Bart or USCAdad, but it helps put things into perspective for people who haven't lived in California.
Let's think of a really BIG body of water, say Williston Lake, the biggest one in BC. 251 km long, the world's largest reservoir until recently, and BC Hydro's crown jewels. If California used Lake Williston for a year, its level would drop by about 120 m, and by May it would be nothing more than a mudflat full of ponds. Or you could redirect the entire Fraser River to California, and that would take care of about 45% of their needs, if none evaporated enroute.
To put it in an Eastern context, California's consumption would drop Lake Erie's level by 40% in a year.
It's a lot of water.
Let's think of a really BIG body of water, say Williston Lake, the biggest one in BC. 251 km long, the world's largest reservoir until recently, and BC Hydro's crown jewels. If California used Lake Williston for a year, its level would drop by about 120 m, and by May it would be nothing more than a mudflat full of ponds. Or you could redirect the entire Fraser River to California, and that would take care of about 45% of their needs, if none evaporated enroute.
To put it in an Eastern context, California's consumption would drop Lake Erie's level by 40% in a year.
It's a lot of water.
We could flood Cali,over and over again.