Two Good and Plausible Ideas about Saving Water and Redirecting it to Where it is Needed.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-10-01/water-pipeline-mississippi-river

Letters to the Editor: A water pipeline from the Mississippi River doesn’t sound so crazy anymore

 

A tourist overlooks Lake Mead, which is at its lowest water level since it was filled 85 years ago.

(Los Angeles Times)

OCT. 1, 2021 3 AM PT

To the editor: With our continued dire drought and experts fearing even lower reservoir water levels in the key basins of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, maybe the proposal for a water pipeline system from the Mississippi River to those lakes isn’t so crazy after all. (“A bitter dispute ends as California water agencies pledge cooperation on Colorado River,” Sept. 28)

Such proposals have been made as far back as 1965, about the time California built its grand water distribution system called the California Aqueduct. That aqueduct is an expansive system of pipelines, canals and pumping stations, and it has served Southern California beautifully all these years.

Now is a critical time for outside-the-box thinking to solve our climate-induced water shortage. I suggest we start now on a new, grand, national water distribution system from flooded water regions like the Gulf states to the lifeblood of the Southwest, the Colorado River, which critically serves seven states.

Jeff Drobman, Chatsworth

RCW  238 stories on conserving water :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s6vxrBPC_8XYQgSNK7-UuNbqsdDKflhXPDeswYFKDt0/edit#

Edited October 2, 2021 by ronwagn
reference

[specinho + 467]

Not sure if it is right to assume those rivers on the west i.e. Missouri, Arkansas, Red River are originated from the rocky mountain range?? Can some of those water be diverted to flow towards the other side??

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

Not sure if it is right to assume those rivers on the west i.e. Missouri, Arkansas, Red River are originated from the rocky mountain range?? Can some of those water be diverted to flow towards the other side??

 

Yes those rivers originate from the Rockies.

A whole bunch of water is diverted between the east and west basins.

Believe it or not, it is typically from the west side, to the east side!    And there are intentions to divert even more western flow to the Front Range (east side) of the Rockies!

https://aspenjournalism.org/a-zombie-pipeline-rises-to-bring-water-from-the-green-river-to-the-front-range/

Gotta keep the developers in Colorado happy.

It would make more sense to divert water within the Mississippi basin BACK to the Front Range and cease diversions from west to east, but that is way more expensive.

Whiskey's for drinkin'.  Water's for fightin'.

The western state boundaries should have been defined by divides, not arbitrary lines on a map.

There is also a (small) diversion between the Saint Laurence river basin to the Mississippi river basin, through Chicago.  There will be no further, due to agreements with Canada.

Edited October 5, 2021 by turbguy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

Not sure if it is right to assume those rivers on the west i.e. Missouri, Arkansas, Red River are originated from the rocky mountain range?? Can some of those water be diverted to flow towards the other side??

 

I think that the only major river system that flows West is the Columbia River that flows through  Oregon. All of the other rivers shown are at low levels right now due to drought in the  West, including the Rocky Mountains. One more year of drought would be disastrous. They are currently pumping groundwater and actually lowering the elevation slightly. 

I have not studied the topography but assume a large amount of energy would be needed to accomplish the goal. It is definitely a good idea to start the planning IMHO. My idea is to run from the Mississippi in Southern Mississippi and use the water for agriculture where needed. West Texas could possibly be made into a great agricultural area and then it could go all the way throughout the Southwest. Branches of pipe distribution would be essential. 

This water should not be used for traditional agriculture IMHO, it should be used for farms using drip irrigation and possibly plastic mulch. 

The engineers here would have to figure out the topography and the energy needed to lift the water to the lowest levels in the high plains. If the water is flowing, freezing might not be a problem in the winter. The excess water could be directed into reservoirs to be used as needed in various areas. Water from the Mississipi is laden with lots of nutrients that flowed south from the farmlands starting throughout the Midwest all the way to Northern Minnesota. It is a major problem when it lands in the Gulf of Mexico because it creates a great dead zone. It would help reduce flooding in areas of the Mississippi that are threatened every Spring. Excess wind or solar power could be used to pump available excess water into reservoirs and the energy could also be used for other periods of time, if that is the highest and best use. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

Not sure if it is right to assume those rivers on the west i.e. Missouri, Arkansas, Red River are originated from the rocky mountain range?? Can some of those water be diverted to flow towards the other side??

 

I think that the only major river system that flows West is the Columbia River that flows through  Oregon. All of the other rivers shown are at low levels right now due to drought in the  West, including the Rocky Mountains. One more year of drought would be disastrous. They are currently pumping groundwater and actually lowering the elevation slightly. 

I have not studied the topography but assume a large amount of energy would be needed to accomplish the goal. It is definitely a good idea to start the planning IMHO. My idea is to run from the Mississippi in Southern Mississippi and use the water for agriculture where needed. West Texas could possibly be made into a great agricultural area and then it could go all the way throughout the Southwest. Branches of pipe distribution would be essential. 

This water should not be used for traditional agriculture IMHO, it should be used for farms using drip irrigation and possibly plastic mulch. 

The engineers here would have to figure out the topography and the energy needed to lift the water to the lowest levels in the high plains. If the water is flowing, freezing might not be a problem in the winter. The excess water could be directed into reservoirs to be used as needed in various areas. Water from the Mississipi is laden with lots of nutrients that flowed south from the farmlands starting throughout the Midwest all the way to Northern Minnesota. It is a major problem when it lands in the Gulf of Mexico because it creates a great dead zone. It would help reduce flooding in areas of the Mississippi that are threatened every Spring. Excess wind or solar power could be used to pump available excess water into reservoirs and the energy could also be used for other periods of time, if that is the highest and best use. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by ronwagn

[specinho + 467]

On 10/6/2021 at 5:46 AM, ronwagn said:

I think that the only major river system that flows West is the Columbia River that flows through  Oregon. All of the other rivers shown are at low levels right now due to drought in the  West, including the Rocky Mountains. One more year of drought would be disastrous. They are currently pumping groundwater and actually lowering the elevation slightly. 

I have not studied the topography but assume a large amount of energy would be needed to accomplish the goal. It is definitely a good idea to start the planning IMHO. My idea is to run from the Mississippi in Southern Mississippi and use the water for agriculture where needed. West Texas could possibly be made into a great agricultural area and then it could go all the way throughout the Southwest. Branches of pipe distribution would be essential. 

This water should not be used for traditional agriculture IMHO, it should be used for farms using drip irrigation and possibly plastic mulch. 

The engineers here would have to figure out the topography and the energy needed to lift the water to the lowest levels in the high plains. If the water is flowing, freezing might not be a problem in the winter. The excess water could be directed into reservoirs to be used as needed in various areas. Water from the Mississipi is laden with lots of nutrients that flowed south from the farmlands starting throughout the Midwest all the way to Northern Minnesota. It is a major problem when it lands in the Gulf of Mexico because it creates a great dead zone. It would help reduce flooding in areas of the Mississippi that are threatened every Spring. Excess wind or solar power could be used to pump available excess water into reservoirs and the energy could also be used for other periods of time, if that is the highest and best use. 

pardon me........ I am not familiar...

If the following map is helping then it would be the most wonderful found...

Mississippi River possibly receives water from many places i.e.  Lake Winnipeg, Lake Superior and Lake Erie; Missouri River, Arkansas River. The source of water might be Saskatchewan River and other areas of the Rocky Mountain? As snow melts in spring, water would be abundant.....

Therefore, reducing water flow from Saskatchewan River into the great lake area and subsequently Mississippi River might help converging areas like St.Louis, the next point near Memphis, New Orleans and places along that line?

Do they need a diverging lakes from Missouri River and Arkansas River before reaching the converging points? Excessive water can be diverted into man made reservoirs and released shall need?

May be........... try not to allow construction of new town around converging points?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

All those waterways you are referencing to provide hydro power and shipping for down stream states. Any attempt to redirect the water flow would be met with extreme resistance from down stream states.

California and Oregon have been at odd's for many yrs in regard's to water "sharing" from the Columbia river. Oregon Liberal govt has no intentions of sharing its water...it seems it is "UN" natural...But the fact is the natives hate to share..absolutely hate it.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-21/columbia-river-water-pipeline

https://www.google.com/search?q=missouri+and+mississippi+rivers+water+rights+legal+issues&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS969US969&ei=rUNjYfq1MYaqwbkP6b6g-AQ&oq=missouri+and+mississippi+rivers+water+rights+legal+issues&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABMgUIIRCrAjIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgcIABBHELADOgoILhCwAxBDEJMCOgUIABCABDoECAAQQzoGCAAQFhAeOggIIRAWEB0QHjoHCCEQChCgAUoECEEYAFCQDljpVmC1ZmgCcAJ4AIABrQWIAbcdkgELOS44LjEuMS4wLjKYAQCgAQHIAQnAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

pardon me........ I am not familiar...

 

If the following map is helping then it would be the most wonderful found...

 

 

Mississippi River possibly receives water from many places i.e.  Lake Winnipeg, Lake Superior and Lake Erie; Missouri River, Arkansas River. The source of water might be Saskatchewan River and other areas of the Rocky Mountain? As snow melts in spring, water would be abundant.....

Therefore, reducing water flow from Saskatchewan River into the great lake area and subsequently Mississippi River might help converging areas like St.Louis, the next point near Memphis, New Orleans and places along that line?

Do they need a diverging lakes from Missouri River and Arkansas River before reaching the converging points? Excessive water can be diverted into man made reservoirs and released shall need?

 

May be........... try not to allow construction of new town around converging points?

Many rivers flow into the Mississippi. I don't think any of them originate in Canada. 

My thinking is to use the shortest route to the Southwest where there is great need and potential exists. The southern areas are the most prone to flooding because of their low elevations and also closest to the Southwest and its population centers. I have not made a serious study of this issue but it makes sense from what I do know. The areas near the Missouri are often using irrigation systems because they have sufficient groundwater. Droughts are alwayse possible in some areas though. The high population areas of Southern California and its Central Valley need water in times of drought, Arizona, Nevada, parts of Colorado, New Mexico, West Texas are also areas for high potential needs or future use. 

More dams are built frequently and that is generally a good idea, but right now we have a lot of empty dams so they can only use what the watersheds provide. There is opposition to more new dams because many want to keep rivers in their natural conditon. Any new plans for water use will involve complex political deals because of factionalism. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

pardon me........ I am not familiar...

 

If the following map is helping then it would be the most wonderful found...

 

 

Mississippi River possibly receives water from many places i.e.  Lake Winnipeg, Lake Superior and Lake Erie; Missouri River, Arkansas River. The source of water might be Saskatchewan River and other areas of the Rocky Mountain? As snow melts in spring, water would be abundant.....

Therefore, reducing water flow from Saskatchewan River into the great lake area and subsequently Mississippi River might help converging areas like St.Louis, the next point near Memphis, New Orleans and places along that line?

Do they need a diverging lakes from Missouri River and Arkansas River before reaching the converging points? Excessive water can be diverted into man made reservoirs and released shall need?

 

May be........... try not to allow construction of new town around converging points?

There is a continental divide between the Great Lakes Basin and the Mississippi river Basin.  You need to find a map that shows ALL the continental divides in  North America

[ronwagn + 6,290]

57 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

All those waterways you are referencing to provide hydro power and shipping for down stream states. Any attempt to redirect the water flow would be met with extreme resistance from down stream states.

California and Oregon have been at odd's for many yrs in regard's to water "sharing" from the Columbia river. Oregon Liberal govt has no intentions of sharing its water...it seems it is "UN" natural...But the fact is the natives hate to share..absolutely hate it.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-21/columbia-river-water-pipeline

https://www.google.com/search?

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

All those waterways you are referencing to provide hydro power and shipping for down stream states. Any attempt to redirect the water flow would be met with extreme resistance from down stream states.

California and Oregon have been at odd's for many yrs in regard's to water "sharing" from the Columbia river. Oregon Liberal govt has no intentions of sharing its water...it seems it is "UN" natural...But the fact is the natives hate to share..absolutely hate it.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-21/columbia-river-water-pipeline

https://www.google.com/search?q=missouri+and+mississippi+rivers+water+rights+legal+issues&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS969US969&ei=rUNjYfq1MYaqwbkP6b6g-AQ&oq=missouri+and+mississippi+rivers+water+rights+legal+issues&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABMgUIIRCrAjIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgcIABBHELADOgoILhCwAxBDEJMCOgUIABCABDoECAAQQzoGCAAQFhAeOggIIRAWEB0QHjoHCCEQChCgAUoECEEYAFCQDljpVmC1ZmgCcAJ4AIABrQWIAbcdkgELOS44LjEuMS4wLjKYAQCgAQHIAQnAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

 

Yes, of course anything would have to be fair to all and would be very difficult to organize. States would have to have first rights to any water that is not excess. That is why I said water that would otherwise tend to floos downstream areas. There are many towns along the Mississipi River that suffer from floods, in fact New Orleans is below sea level. Possibly the Southwest water would have to be purchased from the states where the water originated. The farther the state, the greater the price due to piping and pumping expense. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Many proposals over the years NWAPA is one such... the biggest and greatest such proposal.  Or just do a portion of this proposal on the Eastern Side of the Rockies and southward along with giant Canals through the plains into the Great Lakes and to Hudson Bay.

Diverting water from Columbia via half submerged pipe to CA(the most realistic).

Diverting upper Snake River through UT, into NV and onto CA is another.  2nd most realistic

Do remember that there is ~10M acres of land in the Columbia/Snake River basin which used to be irrigated and are not currently due to regulations about water for downstream hydropower.  So... May as well just talk about a giant 800 mile underground tunnel from the Columbia River to California or Eastern Washington/Oregon, S. Oregon S. Idaho which then allows the local farmers to drill down into this tunnel and pump from which would negate the hydropower contract concerns. 

[specinho + 467]

 

On 10/11/2021 at 3:57 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

All those waterways you are referencing to provide hydro power and shipping for down stream states. Any attempt to redirect the water flow would be met with extreme resistance from down stream states.

California and Oregon have been at odd's for many yrs in regard's to water "sharing" from the Columbia river. Oregon Liberal govt has no intentions of sharing its water...it seems it is "UN" natural...But the fact is the natives hate to share..absolutely hate it.

Thank you for the insight.

Concern is raised regarding

a) too much water flowing down stream, especially after the snow melts away in spring, during storm etc... and

b) not enough water in other areas.

 

If, by measuring the amount of snow and predicting the rainfall during a storm could determine if there is a need of further action to prevent flood and consequential damages, what could the "further action" be?

 

There is always a concern where water might not be enough for the fast developing  activities within a state. It is always good NOT to share to prevent foreseeable dispute when water is becoming scarce e.g. during drought, or too much being used compared to water received etc. Or, if, and when, the water is polluted........

If sharing is not possible, would create one possible?? What is the best way to do so? Which route could be more beneficial? 

 

Flash flood in cities, often time, is caused by unconscious "add on projects or development" onto existing, old- town shed- planning. The route and capacity of initial drainage system usually affected. Besides that, erosion could happen more easily and soil stability would be affected. Excessive underground water could seep into buildings through unnoticed cracks caused by eroded soil and damaged structure. Flash flood becomes more frequent. Climate change has been the common targeted culprit. Other factors such as mentioned are often overlooked, or not yet noticed by most.

There might be a need to slow down the rate of over development merely for profit....... or rapid urbanization to reduce poverty.... Nature will have its way to find its balance again, if we create enough time and space for it to happen.......

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/11/2021 at 10:52 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Many proposals over the years NWAPA is one such... the biggest and greatest such proposal.  Or just do a portion of this proposal on the Eastern Side of the Rockies and southward along with giant Canals through the plains into the Great Lakes and to Hudson Bay.

Diverting water from Columbia via half submerged pipe to CA(the most realistic).

Diverting upper Snake River through UT, into NV and onto CA is another.  2nd most realistic

Do remember that there is ~10M acres of land in the Columbia/Snake River basin which used to be irrigated and are not currently due to regulations about water for downstream hydropower.  So... May as well just talk about a giant 800 mile underground tunnel from the Columbia River to California or Eastern Washington/Oregon, S. Oregon S. Idaho which then allows the local farmers to drill down into this tunnel and pump from which would negate the hydropower contract concerns. 

I no very little about this subject but it seems that the Southwest is the most in need and that is where the population growth is. It is capable of growing crops all year. I think that West Texas would be a great agricultural area if it had enough water. If that was the first section of a water pipeline it might be affordable. If that works then a second pipelines would probably be needed for further areas all the way into New Mexico then Arizona. California might  not even need additional water since it wastes more water than any other state. It could get another pipeline but they are much farther away.

I do not know the topography well enough and probably will not research it as I am no engineer but maybe I could find more information from experts. The  Mississippi River contains an abundance of nutrients in its  water that is wasted and dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. It causes a dead zone in the Gulf. Florida suffers a lot of pollution in the Gulf for that reason. It would be beneficial to remove the nutrients and sell them to farmers. The nutrients came from as far north as Minnesota. There are also insecticides and herbicides. I don't know if the water would have to be filtered before pumping, but probably so. 

I once lived right next to a canal in the foothills of the Sierras that had water pumped over a ridge to get to where it was needed. I would actually go on short float trips on it. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/14/2021 at 12:26 PM, specinho said:

 

Thank you for the insight.

Concern is raised regarding

a) too much water flowing down stream, especially after the snow melts away in spring, during storm etc... and

b) not enough water in other areas.

 

 

If, by measuring the amount of snow and predicting the rainfall during a storm could determine if there is a need of further action to prevent flood and consequential damages, what could the "further action" be?

 

There is always a concern where water might not be enough for the fast developing  activities within a state. It is always good NOT to share to prevent foreseeable dispute when water is becoming scarce e.g. during drought, or too much being used compared to water received etc. Or, if, and when, the water is polluted........

If sharing is not possible, would create one possible?? What is the best way to do so? Which route could be more beneficial? 

 

Flash flood in cities, often time, is caused by unconscious "add on projects or development" onto existing, old- town shed- planning. The route and capacity of initial drainage system usually affected. Besides that, erosion could happen more easily and soil stability would be affected. Excessive underground water could seep into buildings through unnoticed cracks caused by eroded soil and damaged structure. Flash flood becomes more frequent. Climate change has been the common targeted culprit. Other factors such as mentioned are often overlooked, or not yet noticed by most.

There might be a need to slow down the rate of over development merely for profit....... or rapid urbanization to reduce poverty.... Nature will have its way to find its balance again, if we create enough time and space for it to happen.......

 

The Mississippi provides little hydroelectric power that I am aware of. There are dams and locks. I am focused on excess Mississippi water because there is plenty of it and it creates flooding almost every spring. I think that any excess water that was not above flood threat level would probably have to be purchased from the states that are involved. Reservoirs would probably have to be built near the pipelines to hold the water for when it was needed. 

I am sure none of this will happen in our lifetimes but it is worth considering. 

[notsonice + 1,255]

16 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I no very little about this subject but it seems that the Southwest is the most in need and that is where the population growth is. It is capable of growing crops all year. I think that West Texas would be a great agricultural area if it had enough water. If that was the first section of a water pipeline it might be affordable. If that works then a second pipelines would probably be needed for further areas all the way into New Mexico then Arizona. California might  not even need additional water since it wastes more water than any other state. It could get another pipeline but they are much farther away.

I do not know the topography well enough and probably will not research it as I am no engineer but maybe I could find more information from experts. The  Mississippi River contains an abundance of nutrients in its  water that is wasted and dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. It causes a dead zone in the Gulf. Florida suffers a lot of pollution in the Gulf for that reason. It would be beneficial to remove the nutrients and sell them to farmers. The nutrients came from as far north as Minnesota. There are also insecticides and herbicides. I don't know if the water would have to be filtered before pumping, but probably so. 

I once lived right next to a canal in the foothills of the Sierras that had water pumped over a ridge to get to where it was needed. I would actually go on short float trips on it. 

I think that West Texas would be a great agricultural area if it had enough water???? you need fertile land along with water ....For the most part West Texas soils suck same as Nevada ...New Mexico....Arizona.....and way too windy/hot leading to high evaporation rates. Irrigation is expensive and pumping water from the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River (outlandishly expensive) to the West for Ag use is a fools game

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Your own map proves you wrong!

[notsonice + 1,255]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Your own map proves you wrong!

West Texas..... soils are -3 to -5. Your plan to pump water for AG use to West Texas? for what reason....Next time you are in West Texas tell me where there is large tracts of fertile land waiting for a taxpayer funded boondoggle. If you bothered to do a little math first, you would have found out your plan is garbage. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by notsonice

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

West Texas..... soils are -3 to -5. Your plan to pump water for AG use to West Texas? for what reason....Next time you are in West Texas tell me where there is large tracts of fertile land waiting for a taxpayer funded boondoggle. If you bothered to do a little math first, you would have found out your plan is garbage. 

Well, your abject ignorance and arrogance of farming/soils certainly makes you spout garbage ignorant statements.  All of the great plains turn between desert with roving sand dunes from N. Mexico to Alberta and high fertile grass plains PERFECT for AG every ~300 years for dry spells and true desert spells with actual moving sand dunes happened as little as 700 years ago and 2000 years ago with an average interval of around ~700 years.  Carbon 14 dating proves this point conclusively for the 2000 year age and the 700 with more circumstantial evidence for the interval of 300-->350 years or so.  Same goes for the Steppes of Eurasia.  I have not read about Patagonia or Africa, but I would not be surprised if they also move on the same timescale.   Now the soil type from clay --> sand --> rock is all growable in except for rock.  All desert soils, usually of high alkaline nature--> AKA SALTY, are easily fixed by simply GROWING plants in them who fix the PH levels all by themselves by fungi/bacteria breaking down the rocks in question.  The key is CONSTANT root growth in the soil, not monoculture with application of fertilizer.  The key is water availability.   This can easily be seen in E. Montana, Dakotas where you can now pick up land for as little as $500/acre because the fools have salted the ground so heavily with fertilizers that it has ruined the PH level of the soils.  In fact, you can see it via satellite as large tracts look like salt flats... because they ARE salt flats now. 

PS: If you bothered to open a topographic map and then compare with a Rain map, wind map, roughness map, you would see that the -3 t -5 region you showed are 1) mountainous and 2) extremely dry and 3) probably extremely sandy with actual moving sand dunes(been there, seen them).  All of which can be fixed with water.  Then if you got off your ass and opened a WIND atlas, you would note those areas actually have some wind, but nothing all that great.  To achieve a -6 to -8 I would presume means short, shorter, and shortest, growing seasons with added frost everynight or close to it.  --> AKA Sierra mountains/rocky mountains at over 10k ft and hard rock everywhere. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Your own map proves you wrong!

 

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, your abject ignorance and arrogance of farming/soils certainly makes you spout garbage ignorant statements.  All of the great plains turn between desert with roving sand dunes from N. Mexico to Alberta and high fertile grass plains PERFECT for AG every ~300 years for dry spells and true desert spells with actual moving sand dunes happened as little as 700 years ago and 2000 years ago with an average interval of around ~700 years.  Carbon 14 dating proves this point conclusively for the 2000 year age and the 700 with more circumstantial evidence for the interval of 300-->350 years or so.  Same goes for the Steppes of Eurasia.  I have not read about Patagonia or Africa, but I would not be surprised if they also move on the same timescale.   Now the soil type from clay --> sand --> rock is all growable in except for rock.  All desert soils, usually of high alkaline nature--> AKA SALTY, are easily fixed by simply GROWING plants in them who fix the PH levels all by themselves by fungi/bacteria breaking down the rocks in question.  The key is CONSTANT root growth in the soil, not monoculture with application of fertilizer.  The key is water availability.   This can easily be seen in E. Montana, Dakotas where you can now pick up land for as little as $500/acre because the fools have salted the ground so heavily with fertilizers that it has ruined the PH level of the soils.  In fact, you can see it via satellite as large tracts look like salt flats... because they ARE salt flats now. 

PS: If you bothered to open a topographic map and then compare with a Rain map, wind map, roughness map, you would see that the -3 t -5 region you showed are 1) mountainous and 2) extremely dry and 3) probably extremely sandy with actual moving sand dunes(been there, seen them).  All of which can be fixed with water.  Then if you got off your ass and opened a WIND atlas, you would note those areas actually have some wind, but nothing all that great.  To achieve a -6 to -8 I would presume means short, shorter, and shortest, growing seasons with added frost everynight or close to it.  --> AKA Sierra mountains/rocky mountains at over 10k ft and hard rock everywhere. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Southwestern_United_States Tell all the farmers and ranchers about it. All they need to do is add water and fertilizer like any other farmer. There is plenty of potential throughout the west including the southwest. Enough good soil to feed everyone in those areas and more. The cattle raised there would do far better with some irrigation in the good areas and lots of good hay beyond what they get now, especially in the winter. Ammonia fertilizer is made from natural gas which is readily available. 

In previous posts I have mentioned hydroponics used in fabric covered greenhouses and also the use of drip irrigation with or without plastic soil covering which is also useful with limited water. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by ronwagn
spelling

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

25 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Southwestern_United_States Tell all the farmers and ranchers about it. All they need to do is add water and fertilizer like any other farmer. There is plenty of potential throughout the west including the southwest. Enough good soil to feed everyone in those areas and more. The cattle raised there would do far better with some irrigation in the good areas and lots of good hay beyond what they get now, especially in the winter. Ammonia fertilizer is made from natural gas which is readily available. 

In previous posts I have mentioned hydroponics used in fabric covered greenhouses and also the use of drip irrigation with or without plastic soil covering which is also useful with limited water. 

Meanwhile regenertive ag boys in Chiuahuan desert Mexico and in W. Texas, and New Mexico with a mere 6-->10 inches of rain a year are cattle ranching just fine. https://understandingag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/UnderstandingAg_CaseStudy_AlejandroCarrillo_20-1.pdf  It is HOW you manage your acerage more than anything else which DESTROYS the soil making the PH go bad which makes you use fertilzer, buy hay etc.  They have now tripled number of cows/acre.  Sitting at 42acres/cow in a giant desert instead of 250acres/cow.   Yes, water helps, but it is HOW you manage your soil and plant speciation.  Meanwhile in Missouri with lots of rain, Greg Judy Ranch is now under 2 acres per cow/calf pair which is more cow grown per acre than planting Corn assuming a cow feed lot with a tiny fraction of the costs of raising said cows/calves.  No fertilizer required.  Corn... tons of fertilizer required.   Up in North Dakota, Dale Brown ranch... etc etc etc.  He also raises about 50% more cow/acre than growing corn/soy. 

Since ~40%50% of corn/soy crop goes to cattle feed with gargantuan inputs... we could effectively cut 50% of the fertilizer usage of the USA by simply returning to raising cattle and moving them once a day or twice a day instead of dumping them in feed lots.  Oh yea, you also get free chicken/turkey feed by bringing them behind the cattle by about ~4 days when doing this. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Meanwhile regenertive ag boys in Chiuahuan desert Mexico and in W. Texas, and New Mexico with a mere 6-->10 inches of rain a year are cattle ranching just fine. https://understandingag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/UnderstandingAg_CaseStudy_AlejandroCarrillo_20-1.pdf  It is HOW you manage your acerage more than anything else which DESTROYS the soil making the PH go bad which makes you use fertilzer, buy hay etc.  They have now tripled number of cows/acre.  Sitting at 42acres/cow in a giant desert instead of 250acres/cow.   Yes, water helps, but it is HOW you manage your soil and plant speciation.  Meanwhile in Missouri with lots of rain, Greg Judy Ranch is now under 2 acres per cow/calf pair which is more cow grown per acre than planting Corn assuming a cow feed lot with a tiny fraction of the costs of raising said cows/calves.  No fertilizer required.  Corn... tons of fertilizer required.   Up in North Dakota, Dale Brown ranch... etc etc etc.  He also raises about 50% more cow/acre than growing corn/soy. 

Since ~40%50% of corn/soy crop goes to cattle feed with gargantuan inputs... we could effectively cut 50% of the fertilizer usage of the USA by simply returning to raising cattle and moving them once a day or twice a day instead of dumping them in feed lots.  Oh yea, you also get free chicken/turkey feed by bringing them behind the cattle by about ~4 days when doing this. 

I have a nephew learning how to raise cattle on a neighbors farm in California, Missouri ( a town they moved to from southern California.) Illinois also has a fair amount of cattle but more hogs. the hilly areas are often used for cattle while the flatter areas that are well drained are used for corn or soybeans, sometimes hay. There are a lot of small hills in southern Illinois and  throughout areas of the Midwest. 

Good farmland is the norm in Central and Northern Illinois and we grow mainly corn and soybeans. The farmers are very set in their ways and use too much ammonia fertilizer made locally from natural gas but get great results. Some also use treated sewage spread on their fields. Farmland goes for around ten thousand dollars per acre in prime corn and soybean country. I am all for crop rotation and natural ways of fertilizing but few farmers, I have seen, use the most ecological practices. So, we don't see as many honey bees and butterflies, etc. as I would like. Weed killers and insecticide work, but they do pollute the water table and end up in the rivers. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

 Farmland goes for around ten thousand dollars per acre in prime corn and soybean country.

Actually it goes for around $8000/acre as of 2018 prices in Iowa/Illinois/Indiana.  Today that is probably over $10k/acre

Bad hilly ground goes for ~$2k-->$4k/acre.  Or more arid regions etc.  Obviously it drops off $/acre the less rain one gets and the farther away from river barge transportation of grains you are. 

There are multiple online calculators which display this just like how zillow does residential housing. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/20/2021 at 7:04 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Meanwhile regenertive ag boys in Chiuahuan desert Mexico and in W. Texas, and New Mexico with a mere 6-->10 inches of rain a year are cattle ranching just fine. https://understandingag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/UnderstandingAg_CaseStudy_AlejandroCarrillo_20-1.pdf  It is HOW you manage your acerage more than anything else which DESTROYS the soil making the PH go bad which makes you use fertilzer, buy hay etc.  They have now tripled number of cows/acre.  Sitting at 42acres/cow in a giant desert instead of 250acres/cow.   Yes, water helps, but it is HOW you manage your soil and plant speciation.  Meanwhile in Missouri with lots of rain, Greg Judy Ranch is now under 2 acres per cow/calf pair which is more cow grown per acre than planting Corn assuming a cow feed lot with a tiny fraction of the costs of raising said cows/calves.  No fertilizer required.  Corn... tons of fertilizer required.   Up in North Dakota, Dale Brown ranch... etc etc etc.  He also raises about 50% more cow/acre than growing corn/soy. 

Since ~40%50% of corn/soy crop goes to cattle feed with gargantuan inputs... we could effectively cut 50% of the fertilizer usage of the USA by simply returning to raising cattle and moving them once a day or twice a day instead of dumping them in feed lots.  Oh yea, you also get free chicken/turkey feed by bringing them behind the cattle by about ~4 days when doing this. 

That is an excellent article. I like the concept of raising more cattle and adding poultry followers! It sure is a better life than feed lots and tiny cages. You would probably have to control the coyotes though. Certain dog breeds could help there. I admire how they selected a certain breed of cattle to adapt to the area. 

What do you think of biochar for intensive farming. Do periodic controlled burns have similar results. We have a tall grass prairie down the road from me and they just burned it off. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

What do you think of biochar for intensive farming. Do periodic controlled burns have similar results. We have a tall grass prairie down the road from me and they just burned it off. 

Multiple studies show biochar only works in VERY poor sandy soils or where you receive immense amounts of rain as its main function is Retaining nutrients.  IN good soil with proper soil health where you are NOT growing monoculture and NOT ploughing and have live roots in the soil continuously, then biochar does very little and in fact it INHIBITS plant growth in very good soils as it releases nutrients slower than very good soil biome of bacteria/fungi.  It appears to maybe help by ~10% in sandy soils.  Basically water retention where you get same results by adding in furrow irrigation where you can monitor nutrients as well and the possibility for far greater range of benefits for nearly the same cost.

The real question is how often are your droughts? How often dry spells?  What is the water retention of your soil?  Biochar can help this, but there are probably cheaper simpler solutions based on management or just digging a pond allowing irrigation.  Very arid environments it will help significantly.  Of course in said environments... where on earth do you get the material for said biochar?  I do not see hardwood fruit trees growing in the desert or walnut husks/shells around in said parts of the world to make said biochar. This means shipping, trucking, creating massive expenses.  Poor farmers on the edge cannot afford this cost.  They will therefore opt for better management practices. 

Biochar, good biochar requires DENSE hardwood.  Softwoods are useless as biochar functionality requires the correct PORE size to hold bacteria and said nutrients. Large pores = garbage and you just wasted your time/money even though it is "biochar".  Certification of biochar is likewise very difficult as how you apply the water/nutrients to innoculate/activate it matters quite a bit.  This also changes region to region as well based on your soil biology.  So if biochar is sitting outside for a long period of time waiting to be sold...

Biochar is no panacea.