As long as we're proposing pricey solutions for Western drought, how about iceberg mining?
Once a science fiction concept, Labrador and Newfoundland have begun mining icebergs for almost pure drinking water. With all the reports of huge glacier calving in the Arctic, and the fact that supertankers have been built that could carry millions of gallons, isn't it time to start thinking about new methods of getting water, rather than hoping the drought will end or climate change will reverse itself? (They won't.)
If a pipeline for oil from Alaska to the contiguous states was feasible, why not one for water? Since shortages drive up demand, and demand drives up prices, it's conceivable that water may become more expensive than oil in the future — and more necessary for survival.
Engineering has already built floating factories for processing sea harvests, why not mining ships that could crush the ice, feed it to tankers, which could in turn feed it to a coastal pipeline?
The cost would be enormous, but so is every other proposed solution.
Paul Dyke, Desert Hot Springs
As a Minnesotan, I'm all for sharing our excess water with you
I found out about your ongoing water issue, and unlike some of the other rude letters you've received from Minnesotans, I'm all for sharing our excess water with you. I don't believe that it's every state for themselves, as we are the United States of America (emphasis on the United), and cooperation will only make us stronger.
However, I highly doubt that the water we could send you would be enough, as your state currently has around 39 million thirsty people. Seeing as California is right next to the Pacific Ocean, I encourage you to start desalinating the water from there and forget about the Colorado River.
Interestingly enough, there's an excess of water there too due to climate change making sea levels rise.
One more thing, I just want to say that I love how liberal your state is. Good luck you guys, I'm rooting for you.
Nathan Hawk, Elk River, Minnesota
Let the Great Southwest Aqueduct flow!
Conservation, reclamation, but now a new river! Let the Great Southwest Aqueduct flow from West Memphis along the median strip of I-40 to Lake Mojave. Pump it with wind that blows at 7 to 10 mph in Arkansas and more as the ditch goes west. We would not require pumping 24/7 or 365 days. Albuquerque is 5,000 feet high, it's downhill from there.
The Mississippi is a huge river and removing 5% to 10% when the level is above a designated depth would not be missed. Many fellow citizens have a distaste for Californians but the water would go first to West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Hopefully, these states are not likewise scorned and would benefit first.
Expensive? Absolutely, and a bond issue would be needed to cover whatever the cost is. Some of California’s wealth can be shared with the impoverished cities of Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma and allow development west of there.
Western tax money has supported the levees along the river and the subsidies of Midwest farmers recently. Now the government must make a good-faith effort to allow water to flow to the thirsty southwest. The engineering required is not like the Panama Canal.
Charles Imbus, Pasadena
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: How about iceberg mining to solve Western drought? Yes it's expensive
