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 to divert the waters of the Mississippi River to the southwest to help solve the Southwest’s drought problem is nothing more than a plan to steal water that belongs to the Midwest, under the supervision of the federal government at taxpayers’ expense.
Bill doesn’t say what the Midwesterners deprived of this derived water will do for their water needs. If Bill wants water from the Mississippi River, have him move somewhere along the Mississippi. Or install desalinators along the 1,360-mile shoreline of the Pacific Ocean on the mainland. There are desalinators that use solar distillation instead of electricity to produce fresh water, requiring only external power for the pumps.
Another sin for Sin City. Think outside the drought, Bill.
Rod Rom, Butler, Missouri
Midwest doesn’t allow West to take water from Mississippi
As for the letter from Bill Nichols. Don’t feel any obligation to educate your readers about how things work? Why was this letter even published? Water rights are a controversial and highly defined area of law
It is impossible for the states bordering the Mississippi River to allow the diversion of water into the Colorado River.
If I were Californian, I’d look a lot more at desalination, especially in light of rising sea levels.
Richard Layman, Salt Lake City
A pipeline to the West isn’t such a bad idea
Wildfires in the West continue to spiral out of control and increase in size every year. The water supply situation in the western region has declined dramatically, making it more difficult to fight the fires and supply water to farms, municipalities and industry. Nature alone cannot solve this situation. California and other western states are experiencing more and more droughts and less winter snow, further reducing the need for 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. By sending water from the Missouri River west to the beginning of the Colorado River, parts of the Southwest region could meet their increased water needs. The pipeline could also reduce flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi Rver basins, which are quite common.
Regulations for when the water could be shipped should be put in place to ensure that the plains are not deprived of their water needs. Every drop sent west 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 also help the Mississippi River basin
For years I have promoted the diversion of excess water from the Mississippi River Basin. A number of benefits would result from this:
Sea levels are rising as the Mississippi dumps millions of gallons into the gulf every day; diversion would reduce that amount.
The Mississippi River basin faces annual floods that are disastrous for millions of people, including farms.
We have the means to tunnel through mountains where necessary.
Providing water in the Southwest can have a positive effect on climate change
You can tell by my name that I am of Dutch descent and that the Dutch know how to manage their limited land resources, as well as the real danger of flooding.
The water supplies are there; they exist in excess where they are not needed. Perhaps the media can 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 – flooding cities, destroying land and homes – why not take trucks and water tanks/trailers and suck up the excess and drive it across the country to places like Lake Mead. Large fuel costs, but the loss may be greater in the different states without water.
Shawn Houk, Oklahoma City
Those who support abortion rights must convince people to vote for their candidates
According to to the Pew Research Center, net 61% of Americans agree with some form of legal abortion. Yet Roe was brought about by judicial approval rather than legislative action, which is not how our democratic system is designed to work.
The strike on Friday does not necessarily make abortion illegal. It just means that voters in every state will decide the issue. If pro-choice activists disagree with the decision, it’s because they know they could lose at the polls in many parts of the country. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that it was no fairer for the Supreme Court to deny pro-life citizens the rights than for Donald Trump to quash the results of President Biden’s legitimate election.
Those who advocate for legal abortion must now make their case in a way 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-dried West wants to take the water from the Mississippi River? Not really