Leave it to the Westerners to come up with solutions to their problems by causing problems for others.
Las Vegas resident Bill Nichols' June 22 suggestion of diverting Mississippi River water to the Southwest to help solve the Southwest's drought problem is nothing more than a plan to steal, under federal-government oversight at taxpayers' expense, water that belongs to the Midwest.
Bill doesn't say what the Midwesterners who are deprived of this diverted water will do for their water needs. If Bill wants Mississippi River water, let him move to somewhere along the Mississippi. Or install desalinators along the 1,360 miles of Pacific Ocean mainland coastline. There are desalinators that use sun-distillation instead of electricity to produce fresh water, only needing external power for the pumps.
Another sin for Sin City. Think outside the drought, Bill.
Rod Rom, Butler, Missouri
Midwesterners won't allow West to take Mississippi River water
Regarding the letter by Bill Nichols. Don't you feel any obligation to educate your readers about how things work? Why was this letter even published? Water rights are a contentious and highly defined area of law
There is no way the states bordering the Mississippi River would allow for the diversion of water to the Colorado River.
Were I Californian, I'd be looking into desalination a lot more, especially in the face of rising sea levels.
Richard Layman, Salt Lake City
A pipeline to the West isn't such a bad idea
The forest fires in the West continue to burn out of control and increase in scale each year. The water supply situation has dramatically decreased in the western region, increasing the difficulty of fighting the fires as well as supplying water to farms, municipalities, and industry. Nature alone cannot fix this situation. California and other western states are experiencing more and more droughts and reduced winter snows further reducing the needed water.
One possible solution would be to build a pipeline from the Missouri River somewhere between Chamberlain and Yankton, South Dakota, to Poudre Pass Lake in Colorado. Sending water from the Missouri River westward to the beginning of the Colorado River would help parts of the Southwest region meet their increased water needs. The pipeline could also reduce the flooding both along the Missouri and the Mississippi Rver basins that occur quite frequently.
Regulations for when the water could be sent would need to be set up to ensure the plains states are not deprived of their water needs. Every drop sent westward would benefit the regional needs for this precious commodity. The project would also add jobs to the economy.
Paul Marx, West Windsor, New Jersey
Moving water West could help the Mississippi River basin, too
For years I have been promoting the diversion of excess water from the Mississippi River basin. A number of benefits would ensue:
Ocean levels are rising with the Mississippi dumping millions of gallons into the gulf every day; diversion would reduce that amount.
The Mississippi basin faces annual flooding that is catastrophic to millions, including farms.
We have the means to tunnel through mountains where necessary.
Providing water to the southwest could provide a positive impact on climate change
You might note from my name that I am of Dutch heritage and the Dutch know how to manage their limited land resources as well as the real danger of flooding.
The water resources are there; they exist in excess where they are not needed. Perhaps the media can provide focus on a real-life solution that is a win/win for all stakeholders.
Ray DeJong, Redmond, Washington
Mississippi floods make me wonder
I’ve often wondered when the Mississippi floods due to storms and heavy rainfall — thus flooding towns, destroying land and homes — why not take trucks and water tanks/trailers and suck up the excess water, and drive it across the country to places like Lake Mead. Big expense in fuel, but it’s possible the loss in the several states without the water is greater.
Shawn Houk, Oklahoma City
Those who support abortion rights need to convince people to vote for their candidates
According to the Pew Research Center, a net 61% of Americans agree with some form of legal abortion. Yet Roe was enacted by judicial fiat rather than legislative action, which is not how our democratic system is designed to work.
Its striking down Friday does not make abortion illegal per se. It just means voters in each state will decide the matter. If pro-choice activists disagree with the decision, it is because they know in many parts of the country they may lose at the ballot box. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that it was no more just for the Supreme Court to have disenfranchised pro-life citizens than it would have been for Donald Trump to have overturned the results of President Biden’s legitimate election.
Those who advocate for legal abortion must now make their case in a manner that convinces enough fellow citizens to vote for representatives who support the right. That’s how our democracy works.
Miles D. Hill, La Quinta
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: The drought-parched West wants to take Mississippi River water? No way