Too wacky? Moving water from flood to drought

Sep 09, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- As the soggy East tries to dry out from flooding and Texas prays for rain that doesn't come, you might ask: Isn't there some way to ship all that water from here to there?

It's an idea that has tempted some, but reality gets in the way.

A Texas oilman once envisioned long pipelines carrying to drought-stricken Texas cities, just one of several untested fantasies of moving water vast distances. Parched Las Vegas still wants to indirectly siphon off excess water from the overflowing . French engineers have simulated hauling an iceberg to barren Africa. There are even mega-trash bags to move heavy loads of water.

There's certainly plenty of rainwater available. Tropical Storm Lee dumped enough on the already saturated Mid-Atlantic, Northeast and Gulf Coast to bring 9.6 inches of rain across the entire state of Texas, according to calculations by the and The Associated Press.

"One man's is another man's water supply," said Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. "Doesn't it make you want to think about a larger distribution that helps both? That's the crazy part of this. It's a win-win. There's no loser."

But moving vast quantities of water is not simple or cheap, and thus not realistic, experts say. Mostly, it's too costly and political.

However, these dreamed-up concepts show that a quiet is getting more desperate.

"We will go to any lengths to avoid confronting the reality of ," said Arizona State University law professor Robert Glennon, author of the book "Unquenchable."

"What all those zany ideas suggest are the traditional beliefs that we can control nature and there must be some oasis out there where we can go to, to import water."

But those are mirages, he said - tempting, but not realistic.

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, knows the temptation. He's about to fly from Washington, which has had 7 inches since Monday, to Houston, which got about that amount of rain for the entire spring and summer. All that D.C. rain would be enough water for every person in Houston for 10 days.

He jested that he would love to carry water in his suitcases. He said colleagues have been "joking that we'll send Texas our water. Will they send us their oil? But I don't think that's going to fly."

The trouble with water is "there's enough quantity but it is not always in the right places," said G. Tracy Mehan, who was chief water regulator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration during the George W. Bush Administration.

So how about moving it?

"The short answer ... is that it costs too much. It's not a technical problem," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Studies Institute and a MacArthur genius grant recipient for his work on water.

Las Vegas' grand proposal is to take water from the mighty Mississippi in a series of smaller pipeline-like exchanges among states just west of the Mississippi to refill the overused Colorado River. There are no official cost estimates, but it likely would be in the hundreds of billions dollars. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens abandoned his plans for a massive water pipeline stretching across Texas to just moving water around the Texas Panhandle.

Water weighs a lot - about 8.3 pounds per gallon - so moving massive amounts, often up mountains, costs a lot, Glennon said. Gleick notes that conservation and efficiency are cheaper.

Building a pipeline to pump water from flooded areas is foolish because each year it is somewhere different that gets drenched, so you can't build something permanent based on a couple of years' unusual rainy weather, NOAA's Halpert said.

For purely moving water, Gleick likes a smaller-scale concept: the trash bag. A California firm has designed Spragg Bags "with the world's strongest zippers" that haul millions of gallons of drinking water from one place to another over the ocean, said inventor Terry Spragg. It's been used in Greece.

When asked the cost to haul excess water by bag from the flooded Northeast to Texas, Spragg declined to say. "It just wouldn't be practical. It's just too distant... Forget about taking it from New Jersey or Pennsylvania, there are sources that are closer."

If you want to go high-tech for water, desalination - taking salt out of ocean water - and reusing wastewater for drinking water are cheaper and more realistic, said Gleick, author of the book "Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water."

In Big Spring, Texas, they are looking at reusing wastewater by treating it and then adding it to the fresh water supply. Orange County, Calif., has a state-of-the-art water recycling program. And on the International Space Station astronauts use a system that turns their urine into drinkable water. Tampa has a new $158 million water desalination plant that can produce as much as 25 million gallons of water a day from the sea.

While those who need more water say the challenge is just a matter of balancing out too much and too little, other experts say there is a bigger problem: 1 billion people on Earth don't have clean drinking water.

"Absolutely there's a water crisis, but it means different things in different places," Gleick said. "In Africa, it's people dying because they don't have safe drinking water. In Texas, it means people at risk and property being damaged because there's a natural drought. In some places, it might mean not enough water to make semiconductors and grow food.

"Nature always distributes water unevenly - that's just the way it goes," Gleick said.

In the 20th century in the United States, the answer to water shortages was to drill another well, tap another aquifer, build more dams, divert more rivers and build pipelines, Gleick said. But now "we're running into limits."

Politics is almost as big a barrier as price. Legal battles over water run rampant in U.S. history, especially out West. But now they have gone nationwide, along with shortages. North Carolina has sued South Carolina, Florida has sued Georgia and Alabama, and the Great Lakes states have banded together to fend off water diversions, Glennon said. The Great Lakes region has been in and out of court over water rights for about a century.

"People are concerned about water rights. Even in eastern water-rich states, you don't want to be giving it away," said Robert Holmes, who deals with the problem of too much water. He is the national flood hazard coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey.

University of Colorado natural hazards professor Kathleen Tierney put it more bluntly: "As we say in Colorado, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over."

Explore further: UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

More information:
Peter Gleick: http://www.pacinst.org/about-us/staff-board/gleick/

Robert Glennon: http://rglennon.com/books/unquenchable/

Southern Nevada Water Authority: http://www.snwa.com/

Spragg Bags: http://www.waterbag.com/

4.7 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia might drink recycled waste water

May 27, 2006

City officials in Goulburn, Australia, are studying whether residents will concede to use recycled effluent for drinking water, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

New gadget for water purification: a 'nano tea bag'

Aug 18, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists in South Africa have come up with a novel way of purifying water on a small scale using a sachet rather like a tea bag, but instead of imparting flavor to the water, the bag absorbs ...

Great Lakes water agreement is signed

Dec 13, 2005

The governors of the Great Lakes states and Ontario, Canada, officials have agreed to ban nearly all pumping of water from the Great Lakes basin.

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

16 hours ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jwalkeriii
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
So you get the 700,000 gallon spragg bags (which are friggin big bags btw), then put bags on barges down to a waiting oil tanker sized ship. Then ship to port in Texas and communities in Texas pay to pick up the water?

http://www.youtub...Jp6UZaDI
nkalanaga
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
No, you leave out the barge and tanker. The bags are just to keep the fresh water from mixing with seawater, and they can be towed without being lifted out of the water. So, you fill them from a river, tow the whole bag, floating at the end of a rope, to Texas, then charge for the water. Desalination would still probably be cheaper...
bsummey
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
Never gonna work unless you move it down hill, or in other words a river...

Or
they could burn their oil and use the heat to power refrigerators that condense the water by product of burning the oil
Nah

It takes something as powerful as the sun to move water to other places on earth now. We aren't likely to be able to generate that kind of power anytime soon.

Desalinization is definitely the only currently viable solution. Cleaning the water is umpteen times less power intensive than trying to move it these distances, though even that is going to be very power hungry.

Normally nature prevails and this problem fixes itself, ex. people move it or lose it and we are far from being able to dictate nature on these levels.
hopper
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2011
But moving vast quantities of water is not simple or cheap, and thus not realistic, experts say. Mostly, it's too costly and political.
...........
Trouble is FEMA,the core of engineers and a variety of other agencies are spending several billion dollars annually for flood control. So why not instead of spending that money on flood control--spend the money on shipping water west.
hopper
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2011
"The short answer ... is that it costs too much. It's not a technical problem," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Studies Institute and a MacArthur genius grant recipient for his work on water.
..............
All you'd need to do would be to lay in pipeline, pumps and portable nuclear power plants to pump the water. The argument for doing this will be compelling in a few years when portable thorium based nuclear power plants are developed that will cost 1/10th as much as uranium based portable nuclear power plants
Jonseer
not rated yet Sep 11, 2011
Trouble is FEMA,the core of engineers and a variety of other agencies are spending several billion dollars annually for flood control. So why not instead of spending that money on flood control--spend the money on shipping water west.


Well the obvious answer is, it does NOTHING to stop the flooding. The volume of water involved in flooding is many times the ability of any man made system to handle efficiently by shipping it elsewhere.
Storing it isn't free, and in years of normal or above rainfall in places suffering from drought today like Texas they wouldn't need the water adding even more cost in order to figure out what to do with an unused pipeline.
Jonseer
not rated yet Sep 11, 2011
"The short answer ... is that it costs too much......The argument for doing this will be compelling in a few years when portable thorium based nuclear power plants are developed that will cost 1/10th as much as uranium based portable nuclear power plants


And that still misses to stated objection. That will cost too much.

Thorium may be cheaper overall to use than uranium, but it doesn't cut the price of making/buying all that pipe laying it nor the actual cost of building those reactors, oh and let's not forget the cost of buying property right for right of way.

In any case if your idea was valid, I'm sure private corporations would be all over it trying to be the first to build such a thing.

The cheapest best solution is reusing purified waste water like the Astronauts have been doing for decades.
Ricochet
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
...when portable thorium based nuclear power plants are developed that will cost 1/10th as much as uranium based portable nuclear power plants


We could just figure out how to use mini worm tunnels to instantly transport the water to needed areas...