Bringing Water To Texas From The Mississippi

  • Thread starter average guy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Water
In summary: Interesting question. The Highest point on the Mississippi River is at the source in Lake Itasca (approx 1425 ft. The western half of texas and all of New Mexico is at elevations greater than 2000 ft. ). If these numbers are correct, the water would only need to be brought a short distance - from the source to Texas - to turn it into farmland. However, if some of the soil is useless like the Imperial Valley in California, the water would need to be diverted to cross them off the list. As you point out, one 'stop' would be lowering the river too much for barge traffic. Texas is only one state away from the Mississippi
  • #1
average guy
119
0
i think this would be a good idea.
then west texas and new mexico would be green.
then New Orleans wouldn't flood.
i think you'd tap into the Mississippi north
of the direct route.
what do the civil engineers out there think?

Have A Nice Day!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
average guy said:
i think this would be a good idea.
then west texas and new mexico would be green.
then New Orleans wouldn't flood.
i think you'd tap into the Mississippi north
of the direct route.
what do the civil engineers out there think?

Have A Nice Day!

Interesting question.

The Highest point on the Mississippi River is at the source in Lake Itasca (approx 1425 ft. The western half of texas and all of New Mexico is at elevations greater than 2000 ft.

1. How much water do you want to take?
2. How are you going to get it there?
3. What route will the water follow?
4. If used to Green West Texas and the Southwest, how much of a cost will that add to produce?
5. Since New Orleans flooded sue to Hurricane storm surge, how much will it change flooding risk?
6. Will diversion of water affect barge traffic on the river? Will this be taking from the midwestern economy to help the Southwest?
 
  • #3
Diverting the part of river to Texas would have BIG consequences downstream. Imagine conducting an Environmental Impact Study on your proposal: consider all the possible results. IMHO, we would need this study before any decision to do it.

New Orleans flooded because of the storm surge of a hurricane, not from water in the Mississippi River.

The Army Corps of Engineers probably would be the ones to ask this. They have resposnsiblilty for flood control measures.
 
  • #4
Yeah I was going to say - you'd need to take only the flood water to avoid the worst of the environmental effects, which would be tricky. Part of the reason floods are so damaging is that the existing flood control methods were not up to the task (and that's the only kid of flooding that makes the news) so the proposal translates into two parts 1. effective diverting flood waters, and 2. transporting the water someplace it is needed. (though it may be possible to use #2 to motivate better #1)

Even diverting only that floodwater that is destructive to human endeavor can still have large environmental impacts since the river has been flooding like that for a lot longer than we've been around so the whole ecosystem has evolved to cope and even take advantage of it.

Then there is the ecology of west texas etc to think about.
Making it greener is not nessesarily a good idea.

(Also means EI studies have to focus on what kind of negative impact we are prepared to live with.)

I think all this critique boils down to "needs more research".
Don't be put off, new ideas always get dumped on in science - that's how things work.
There are large-scale irrigation projects around the World, have a look at some of them, see how other people overcame the major problems and get back to us?
 
  • #5
North central Texas already has eyes on the Red River. I've lived in both areas, and I find it ludicrious that they'll likely divert water from producing food and instead use it to support lawns, swimming pools, and ponds for gated communities.
 
  • #6
There's that: a lot of effort is being spent on irrigating deserts while building over fertile land too. But then we segway into politics and economics and the summary of the summary of the summary, as the Great Adams[1] would have it is: "people are a problem". Not one that will get solved any time soon.

-----------------------------------
[1] Douglas Adams :)
 
  • #7
NUCENG said:
...
The Highest point on the Mississippi River is at the source in Lake Itasca (approx 1425 ft. The western half of texas and all of New Mexico is at elevations greater than 2000 ft. ...

If these numbers are correct they kind of shoot the whole idea down, don't they? I mean, unless you're going to pump the water up into Texas...
 
  • #8
That would be correct - how you pump the water is an engineering question and whether it is affordable is an economic question. People pump water uphill all the time - they could use a hydraulic ram pump for example.
 
  • #9
nuclear engineer
i want to take enough water to turn to all of Texas into farmland.
if some of the soil is useless like the Imperial Valley in California
cross them off the list.
as you point out one 'stop' would be lowering river too much
for barge travel.
Texas is only one state away from the Mississippi.
given then water needs to be carried west some more.
it's not like building a tunnel from Nova Scotia to England.

Have A Nice Day!
 
  • #10
There's a fixed energy cost for desalinating water from the Gulf. An beginning threshold would be can water be brought from the Mississippi for a lower energy cost.
 
  • #11
mr heslep
the cost is not the concern of an engineer on a mission:smile:
water can be raised in elevation.
how texas became dry isn't relevant either.
i don't think there were ever forests there anyhow.
i'm going to look at a map and see how far it is
from river to west texas.

Have A Nice Day!
 
  • #12
mr heslep
it's 200 miles across the top of Louisiana to
the Texas State line.
then let Texas deal with it.
they are 1/4 of the US economy.
there might be a better way to get it there.
there are existing rivers that more water
could be diverted into.
then they could be widened and reinforced.

Have A Nice Day!
 
Last edited:
  • #13
average guy said:
mr heslep
the cost is not the concern of an engineer on a mission:smile:
So wrong.
 
  • #14
russ
could you support your statement with some facts?
i like the idea of widening and deepening an existing river.
if the river was very small or dry the flow could be stopped totally.
then all construction could be done 'dry'.
then the new West Texas-Mississippi Aqueduct could be opened.:smile:
much more efficient.

Have A Nice Day!
 
  • #15
average_guy -- I'm kind of busy right now, maybe you can spend some time and come up with some estimates for

how much water you want to move

the power required to pump it uphill (say 1000 feet) and move it 700 miles (say, from Greenville MS to Odessa TX)
 
  • #16
gmax
i say start out taking the water that rises too high
in the Mississippi.
it could be stored in reservoirs in Texas.
i think how much power to raise water 1000 feet
is a civil engineering question.
no civil engineer here.
good call on Odessa, they could use some water.
it may start getting drier heading west before that.

Have A Nice Day!
 

Related to Bringing Water To Texas From The Mississippi

What is the purpose of bringing water to Texas from the Mississippi?

The purpose of bringing water to Texas from the Mississippi is to provide a reliable and sustainable source of water for the state's growing population and increasing demand for water resources.

How will the water be transported from the Mississippi to Texas?

The water will be transported through a system of pipelines and canals, which will require significant infrastructure and engineering projects to be completed.

What are the potential benefits of bringing water to Texas from the Mississippi?

The potential benefits include increased water supply for urban, industrial, and agricultural use, as well as improved water quality and flood control in the Mississippi River Basin.

What are the potential challenges and risks associated with bringing water to Texas from the Mississippi?

The main challenges and risks include the high cost of constructing and maintaining the necessary infrastructure, potential environmental impacts, and legal disputes with other states and stakeholders over water rights.

What is the timeline for implementing this project and when can we expect to see results?

The timeline for implementing this project will depend on various factors such as funding, regulatory approvals, and construction progress. It could take several years to complete and the full benefits of the project may not be seen for decades.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
5
Replies
142
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top