AHC: Mass Canadian Water Exports

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
This has the potential to be an interesting discussion and it hasn't jumped the shark into current politics yet.

Be a real shame if it did.
 
"It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice."

General Jack D. Ripper - 1964
 
I think one key issue is whether the planners would use a pipeline or an open canal. Pipelines certainly limit the amount of seepage & evaporation but the flow rate of an open canal (like the Arizona and California ones) are gigantic compared to a pipeline. The key issue with an open canal is the problem of freezing since the transport would run from the cold North down to the Southwest.
 

No need for a fight. You guys should have just purchased Prince Rupert's Land when you had the chance.
250px-Ruperts_land.svg.png
 
Last edited:
I think one key issue is whether the planners would use a pipeline or an open canal. Pipelines certainly limit the amount of seepage & evaporation but the flow rate of an open canal (like the Arizona and California ones) are gigantic compared to a pipeline. The key issue with an open canal is the problem of freezing since the transport would run from the cold North down to the Southwest.

Evaporation loss is not a total waste as it does increase the water content of the air. If it's a large enough canal it would have a local micro climate effect.
 
Evaporation loss is not a total waste as it does increase the water content of the air. If it's a large enough canal it would have a local micro climate effect.

Good 3rd order effect and would help the whole way down the line on the Western slope of the Rockies
 
But in 1967, there was another proposal called CeNAWP (Central North American Water Project). 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

For context the California water system in total delivers 40 million acre feet of water.

Reading the book in the provided link makes it pretty clear that the project is unfeasible at any point once environmentalism has entered the picture. Even dams were getting major protests well before this proposal.

In terms of the USA being willing and able to build this with a perceived need the New Deal is the place to look and perhaps the Dustbowl the hinge. I imagine the USA will have to pay for the Canada side but I’m not an expert in Canadian politics then. Among many things this is one heck of a jobs program and the butterflies are massive. The backlash could deeply strengthen environmentalism later on, huge demographic and development implications, upended local politics…. What a great find.

Well if anyone wants to do a timeline? I’m tempted just because all the research would be great fun, but the scope and the time needed yikes. Perhaps @Amerigo Vespucci wants to add a new chapter to their great mega project series.

Edit: well if anyone could build the infrastructure for this, Robert Moses could. His two greatest enemies in the 1930s are rather powerful figures in their own right, even if Moses usually won their battles. President FDR and Mayor LaGuardia and the New Deal cash. This is also when Moses has been weakened by his run for Governor in 1934. Prying Moses even briefly out of NYC would be fun because a whole bunch of subways would be built :) and 1930s free money is like the best time to go with no Moses plus he’ll be weaker once he assuredly returns so perhaps never gets his hands on housing.

John L. Savage builds the canal. I mean seriously, who else possibly gets tapped even with my cursory glance lol.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
For context the California water system in total delivers 40 million acre feet of water.

Reading the book in the provided link makes it pretty clear that the project is unfeasible at any point once environmentalism has entered the picture. Even dams were getting major protests well before this proposal.

In terms of the USA being willing and able to build this with a perceived need the New Deal is the place to look and perhaps the Dustbowl the hinge. I imagine the USA will have to pay for the Canadian side of things but I’m not an expert in the era. Among many things this is one heck of a jobs program and the butterflies are massive. The backlash could deeply strengthen environmentalism later on, huge demographic and development implications, upended local politics…. What a great find.

Well if anyone wants to do a timeline? I’m tempted just because all the research would be great fun, but the scope and the time needed yikes. Perhaps @Amerigo Vespucci wants to add a new chapter to their great mega project series.
In the 1930s, we had not yet used our rivers to their full capacity. There'd be no reason to get water from Canada. Maybe the early 50s.
 
That doesn't apply to CeNAWP. The land between Great Bear Lake and the Great Lakes is completely flat.

That's true for the most part there. Lake Winnipeg is listed at an elevation of 712 feet above sea level. And it's from Lake Winnipeg that the water will be sent South West into the arid states. Those places have elevations that are thousands of feet above sea level. Laramie, Wyoming, for example is 7165 feet ASL. Even Eastern Colorado where the Arikaree river would be part of the water route is 3317 feet above sea level. So clearly a huge amount of pumping capacity must be built and powered. A couple of new nuclear plants at key locations maybe?
 
Last edited:
It's remarkable how many evironmental problems could be solved by much cheaper power. I hope solar power does that.

Highly doubtful, as the best solar cells are only about 50% efficient when the sun is shining and you would need millions of them to make this work. Your better bet for the energy needs of this idea would be nuclear reactors and lots of them.
 
Highly doubtful, as the best solar cells are only about 50% efficient when the sun is shining and you would need millions of them to make this work. Your better bet for the energy needs of this idea would be nuclear reactors and lots of them.
In the 1960s or 1970s, maybe, but mostly because solar energy barely even existed then outside of the lab (and that mostly in space). Nuclear reactors (especially "lots of them") had cost issues that would make them impractical as well (and not because "no one builds them"; the cost issues were a major cause behind the collapse of the '70s nuclear boom in the United States), but they at least could be built at scale.

Nowadays, not really. It turns out we're really good at churning out solar cells like any other mass-manufactured product, whereas nuclear reactors...well, even in the SMR concept you're not really getting that level of mass production.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The issue is that everyone is talking about 21st century water problems and stating we build them in the 1930-1970.

No government is going to plan for something that does not exist. They be voted out of power before the ink is wet on any bill.

Let’s say that western Canada for what ever reason was part of the US. Any attempt by any government today to pump water out one state for the benefit of another be turned down by the state most affected. You think Manitoba going to allow its water to be diverted or pumped elsewhere. Heck even diverting a river that part of watershed be mired in court battles till you have grandkids.

It’s not going to happen. Sorry but it’s impractical, engineering almost impossible and political suicide.

You be a politician and convince voters in rich states such as New York, California or Florida to spend 500 billion dollars to bring water from norther rivers to south. You would be laughed at and if that not convince you. They lock you up for suggesting that. Political suicide.
 
Any attempt by any government today to pump water out one state for the benefit of another be turned down by the state most affected.
Uh, the Army Corps of Engineers kind of does that today. They kind of do it a lot, actually, although they tend to rely heavily on pre-existing canals (aka "rivers") to do the bulk of the actual "pumping". See the numerous Arizona v. California cases for one example where, indeed, water is "pumped out" of one state (Arizona) for the benefit of another (California). Also see Lake Lanier and the related disputes between Georgia (the upstream state) and Florida and Alabama (the downstream states) over who is entitled to the waters. Georgia, despite being the state out of which water is being "pumped," has by no means gotten its own way all the time.

As others have already noted, the engineering and environmental difficulties are probably more important barriers; by the time doing something like this is practical from an engineering standpoint, albeit expensive, the idea of redirecting rivers every which way and pumping water all over the place for irrigation, industry, and human water supplies is no longer going to be looked at as an unquestionably good idea.
 
Top