kernals12
Banned
My latest pet project is getting more people into the grossly underpopulated American west. As it is now, only 2 states, California and Washington, are in the top half of American states for population density. The bottom 10 least densely populated states is dominated by the west
40. Utah
41. Kansas
42. Nevada
43. Nebraska
44. Idaho
45. New Mexico
46. South Dakota
47. North Dakota
48. Montana
49. Wyoming
50. Alaska
And I think there is one big factor behind this
US population Density
US Average Annual Precipitation
I don't need to explain why water is such an important factor in the lack of people West of the 100th Meridian.
But you also probably know that we do have large cities in the middle of the desert, like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Southern California. That is the product of irrigation. Irrigation has also enabled most of what little agriculture there is in the region, especially in California's Central Valley. So it seems logical that more water means more people.
Canada has just .5% of the world's people but has 9% of the world's freshwater supplies and there have been lots of proposals to use Canadian water to make the American desert bloom.
The most infamous was NAWAPA (North American Water And Power Alliance)
Drafted by the Ralph M Parsons Company of Los Angeles in 1964, it would have diverted water from the Yukon, Peace, and Liard Rivers into a giant trench 500 miles long from where it would be transferred into the Missouri, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande Rivers. Estimates in 1975 were for a cost of $100 billion ($400 billion in today's money). And it would've flooded lots of valuable farmland and displaced many people.
But in 1967, there was another proposal called CeNAWP (Central North American Water Project). It would've relied on connecting Great Bear Lake, Great Slave Lake, Lake Athabasca, and Lake Winnipeg to the Great Lakes, from where it could be diverted to water the West.
It wouldn't have required the construction of any reservoirs, instead mostly making use of natural features. It wouldn't have gone over any mountains, unlike NAWAPA. This would've made it much less expensive, less environmentally destructive, and more tolerable to Canadian voters.
It would've delivered 150 million acre feet of water.
So how can we get this built? Bonus points if it's several decades before 1967, perhaps 1937 or 1947, when Americans still had that pioneer spirit and were not too concerned with the environment.
40. Utah
41. Kansas
42. Nevada
43. Nebraska
44. Idaho
45. New Mexico
46. South Dakota
47. North Dakota
48. Montana
49. Wyoming
50. Alaska
And I think there is one big factor behind this
US population Density
US Average Annual Precipitation
I don't need to explain why water is such an important factor in the lack of people West of the 100th Meridian.
But you also probably know that we do have large cities in the middle of the desert, like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Southern California. That is the product of irrigation. Irrigation has also enabled most of what little agriculture there is in the region, especially in California's Central Valley. So it seems logical that more water means more people.
Canada has just .5% of the world's people but has 9% of the world's freshwater supplies and there have been lots of proposals to use Canadian water to make the American desert bloom.
The most infamous was NAWAPA (North American Water And Power Alliance)
Drafted by the Ralph M Parsons Company of Los Angeles in 1964, it would have diverted water from the Yukon, Peace, and Liard Rivers into a giant trench 500 miles long from where it would be transferred into the Missouri, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande Rivers. Estimates in 1975 were for a cost of $100 billion ($400 billion in today's money). And it would've flooded lots of valuable farmland and displaced many people.
But in 1967, there was another proposal called CeNAWP (Central North American Water Project). It would've relied on connecting Great Bear Lake, Great Slave Lake, Lake Athabasca, and Lake Winnipeg to the Great Lakes, from where it could be diverted to water the West.
It wouldn't have required the construction of any reservoirs, instead mostly making use of natural features. It wouldn't have gone over any mountains, unlike NAWAPA. This would've made it much less expensive, less environmentally destructive, and more tolerable to Canadian voters.
It would've delivered 150 million acre feet of water.
So how can we get this built? Bonus points if it's several decades before 1967, perhaps 1937 or 1947, when Americans still had that pioneer spirit and were not too concerned with the environment.