Atlanta's Water: Would an aqueduct from Chattanooga be feasible?

[Spoke]

Atlanta has a long-term problem with its water supply. The city's water needs are served by the relatively small Chattahoochee River. We've known for years that it would not be adequate to meet the city's ever-growing requirements. And now, the drought has brought the issue to the fore. (Current estimates run between 3 months and 9 months before the water at Lake Lanier drops below the valves, barring significant rainfall.)

And there, tantalizingly, just across the border in Chattanooga, sits the magnificent Tennessee River. Now granted, to get us some of that sweet Tennessee water would require a lot of political wrangling. Specifically, we would have to get cooperation from the state of Tennessee and the Army Corps of Engineers and the TVA. (Not to mention the downstream states.)

Discussion of the politicaal issues is welcome, but I'm most interested in the practical aspect. Is there any reason we couldn't construct an aqueduct, running, say, along the right-of-way of Interstate 75, from Chattanooga to Atlanta?

(Or hell, maybe we Atlantans should all just pack up and move to Chattanooga.)

[Colophon]

Chattanooga: Elevation 685ft.
Atlanta: Elevation 1,010ft.

[BobMmm]

Atlanta is a great example of what could happen to Los Angeles and Phoenix. Both are cities which support populations MUCH MUCH larger than they should in terms of water.

[fiddlesticks]

The elevation problem isn't unsolvable, as Los Angeles pumps the water it gets from the Eastern Sierras over quite a set of mountains.

But the Tennessee River is an even more tightly managed river than the Chattahoochee. Lots of people are going to cry foul if Atlanta asks to suck off a few billion gallons, certainly a lot more than folks currently complaining on the downstream side of the Chattahoochee.

[Xema]

The elevation problem isn't unsolvable, as Los Angeles pumps the water it gets from the Eastern Sierras over quite a set of mountains.
True - but since that water starts out at a reasonably high altitude, on its way to LA it can generate power to drive those pumps. Pumping water from Chattanooga to Atlanta is going to consume a fair amount of energy.

[Duckster]

Atlanta is a great example of what could happen to Los Angeles and Phoenix.

With finite natural resources, in this case water, Atlanta is the first example of what will happen to Los Angeles and Phoenix.

[KlondikeGeoff]

[QUOTE=fiddlesticks]The elevation problem isn't unsolvable, as Los Angeles pumps the water it gets from the Eastern Sierras over quite a set of mountains. /QUOTE]


I well may be wrong, but from what I've read, an amazing engineer named Mulholland designed the system so that the water goes over the mountains by siphon action. That may now be outdated, but don't think so.

What I have always wondered is why, if oil and natural gas can be pumped through pipelines all over the U.S., even from Alaska, why can't arid areas of the US pipe water in from the Great Lakes or other places where there is an abundance of water?

[Colophon]

The elevation problem isn't unsolvable, as Los Angeles pumps the water it gets from the Eastern Sierras over quite a set of mountains.
I know that and was being slightly flip with my answer. But I tend to think of an "aqueduct" as being just a gravity-fed channel à la Ancient Rome - surely if you're pumping water you've got a pipeline rather than an aqueduct?

[Spoke]

Chattanooga: Elevation 685ft.
Atlanta: Elevation 1,010ft.

That's surprising. It feels like a mostly downhill drive from Chattanooga to Atlanta. But then, the center of Chattanooga is hard by a riverbank, while Peachtree Street in the center of Atlanta is built along a low ridge. Maybe that explains it?

I mentioned an aqueduct because I assumed (it seems mistakenly) that it was a generally downhill run.

[Telemark]

Doesn't much of the water going through the Sierras travel through slanted tunnels like in the Rockies near Denver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffat_Tunnel

[fiddlesticks]

The LA Aqueduct is completely gravity fed (Viva Mulholland!) Here's (http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4933/) a picture of a spot where the water goes uphill. Presumably the same thing could be feasible for a aqueduct from the Tennessee River to metro Atlanta. But the political issues involved of transporting water from the Tennessee basin to a place its never been before are probably far more complicated than any technological problems in the design.

[Carson O'Genic]

Mr.Klondike,pipeline infrastructure (oil & gas) at present lacks capacity to move the volume of water required in the posed examples,though as I understand their typical designation as common carriers,such service could be contracted at any time.

[WarmNPrickly]

Chattanooga: Elevation 685ft.
Atlanta: Elevation 1,010ft.

Well allright, but maybe the matter in Atlanta is considerably more dense than in Chattanooga.

[rocking chair]

it is a bit odd to see parts of the country underwater while in other parts the lakes are becoming ponds. seems like there should be some way of getting the flood to the drought.

would there be a way to get water from point f to point d using calverts and the interstate systems?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Tennessee is suffering from a drought.

Keep yer chickin-pickin'-thievin' fingers off our water.

Go drain that aquarium of yours, if ya want water. :mad:

[Ephemera]

That's surprising. It feels like a mostly downhill drive from Chattanooga to Atlanta. But then, the center of Chattanooga is hard by a riverbank, while Peachtree Street in the center of Atlanta is built along a low ridge. Maybe that explains it?

Surprises me, too. I live outside Chattanooga but work in it and there're all kinds of mountains surrounding the city, as well as a few inside it, too.

Also, what Bosda said.

[Spoke]

Tennessee is suffering from a drought.

Bah. You have plenty to spare for us neighbors to the South. How much do y'all really need to run your stills, anyway?

Besides which, but for a faulty survey, that river (or at least part of it) would be ours (http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/31/surveyed1031.html):
Today, using modern mapping and measuring techniques, we know that Camak placed the now recognized, established and accepted corner approximately 5,600 feet (about 1.1 miles) south of where the congressional acts and the record description say it should have been placed. The correct location actually falls north of the old Tennessee River bed prior to the formation of the Nickajack Reservoir and its subsequent flooding. The Tennessee River actually cuts into a corner of Georgia, much as I-24 cuts into the state at Wildwood, today.

Maybe we'll just move the fence over a bit. Just to comport with the original intent, y'know.

[Lambo]

What I have always wondered is why, if oil and natural gas can be pumped through pipelines all over the U.S., even from Alaska, why can't arid areas of the US pipe water in from the Great Lakes or other places where there is an abundance of water?

Well, it's not going all over the country, but the Lewis and Clark pipeline project (http://www.lcrws.org/plan.asp) will move Missouri River water well over 300 miles into parts of South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. It's beginning to happen, but it takes YEARS to get these things in place. I remember how big this issue was in Sioux Falls in 1999, and it's not scheduled to be completed until 2016.

[Exapno Mapcase]

One issue about water pipelines vs. oil pipelines is the relative amount of each we use.

This site (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/) estimates 408,000 million gallons of water used each day in the U.S. This other site (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption) gives the total oil use at 870 million gallons.

That's 469 times as much water as oil.

Just duplicating the current pipelines - something that would take decades and cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars - would get us to 0.2% of our water needs. The project Lambo refers to would yield 45 million gallons a day, or not even the expected five-year increase in Atlanta's water use.

Moving water across country is just not a solution for the short term, and probably won't work in the long term, either.

[Colophon]

Re Atlanta's elevation, according to the internets, it is apparently either the second (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html), third (http://www.teamaquaphoractive.com/Page794.aspx) or fourth (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html) highest major city in the USA. Which was a surprise to me too.

[Spoke]

Re Atlanta's elevation, according to the internets, it is apparently either the second (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html), third (http://www.teamaquaphoractive.com/Page794.aspx) or fourth (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html) highest major city in the USA. Which was a surprise to me too.

I knew it was one of the higher cities in the US. I just thought Chattanooga was higher.

But I was wrong.

[Madd Maxx]

Actually, it makes sense that Atlanta is high elevationally speaking. Hot air rises and it is known as Hot-lanta.

[Xema]

Re Atlanta's elevation, according to the internets, it is apparently either the second (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html), third (http://www.teamaquaphoractive.com/Page794.aspx) or fourth (http://www.kennesaw.edu/stu_dev/isrs/hb17.html) highest major city in the USA.
I'm not too sure about the reliability of that first link. Check these factoids:
Did you know Atlanta ...
- is 6,150 square miles?
- has 7,000 total square miles of toll-free road, the largest in the world?
Apparently, multi-layer highways are popular in Atlanta.

And check this from the second link:
Atlanta, the capital and most populous city in the state of Georgia, is a city rich in history dating back to the Civil Rights Movement.
No history prior to that?

[fiddlesticks]

No history prior to that?

No! We were on vacation!

[Crotalus]

I am currently working at my company's headquarters, which is a wooded campus on the banks of the Chattahoochee down-stream from Lake Lanier. I walked down to the river yesterday. While I understand the needs of the states down-stream, the current situation must be very frustrating to the folks in this area. The river is full, no exposed banks at all, and the current is flowing rapidly. It must seem to the locals that "their" water is being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico.