Moving freshwater around on continents

The Chicago River used to drain to the Great Lakes, but not for quite a while:

In 1887, the Illinois General Assembly decided to reverse the flow of the Chicago River through civil engineering by taking water from Lake Michigan and discharging it into the Mississippi River watershed, partly in response to concerns created by an extreme weather event in 1885 that threatened the city’s water supply.[3] In 1889, the Illinois General Assembly created the Chicago Sanitary District (now The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District) to replace the Illinois and Michigan Canal with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, a much larger waterway, because the former had become inadequate to serve the city’s increasing sewage and commercial navigation needs.[4] Completed by 1900,[5] the project reversed the flow of the main stem and South Branch of the Chicago River by using a series of canal locks and increasing the flow from Lake Michigan into the river, causing the river to empty into the new canal instead.

So essentially some of the precious Great Lakes water has been finding its way elsewhere for over 120 years. along with a bunch of Chicago’s crap.

There’s been a whole lot of work done starting back in the 1960’s on growing good wine grapes in various climates. NYState has gotten much better at it and now wins international competitions with some frequency. I expect Ohio’s getting better at it too.

That’s relatively true; in part because they’re a very deep rooted crop, given the chance, and can therefore take a lot of drought as long as the rains show up eventually. But multiyear droughts can get them. (Not to mention fire; which does longer term damage than it does to a hayfield. Grapevines take several years to come into full bearing.)

You’re right that there are crops other than grapes for which that’s more of an issue.

And a lot of the Great Lakes area is in the Northeast, and not the Midwest.

I have had Ohio wine within the last year, trust me it ain’t Napa Valley.

By the way, if you’re in the Great Plains region, don’t be too critical of California for its overuse of water because the Great Plains region is dependent on groundwater that’s being depleted faster than it’s refilled.

Were they any of these?

Nah, they were local wines in southern Ohio.

I don’t know about all of it but a lot of the non-Great Lakes related aquifers in the Midwest tend to be really healthy. I’ve been involved in some activity in Southern Ohio the last couple of years, and I happened to see something awhile back that said the Great Miami Aquifer which supplies the water to the Dayton area and on South to the northern suburbs of Cincinnati, is one of the largest aquifers in the region and has had a stable water level since the 1960s. There’s a number of similarly big and healthy aquifers in other parts of Ohio. The Miami buried valley aquifer as I understand it is the geological remnants of an ancient valley, that have long since filled with sediment and such, the Miami river system runs around through it, and the immense amount of sediment (sand and other sediments) get completely soaked with water from rain and that seeps into it from the river system.

In the rare dry years in Ohio, the water that totally soaks in all the space between these sediments, seeps back into the river system if the flow gets lower, keeping the above ground river flowing reliably as well. It’s a very stable and healthy aquifer system, and I think projections suggest other Midwestern states are going to do very well in the future with water supply: Climate change to increase water stress in many parts of U.S. | NOAA Climate.gov

OH / IN / IL / MN / MI and much of WI are going to actually have more water raining down in 2060 (based on current climatological guesstimates) than they do today.

The Midwest has a lot of things people make fun of it for, but when it comes to global warming it is likely one of the best positioned regions of the United States. It’ll be warmer, but it can get warmer and still be tolerable. I’m not sure places like Louisiana / Florida / Texas / Arizona can say the same. Low lying wetlands coastal states like Florida are in serious danger of losing much of their freshwater to sea level rise, hydrologists have long warned that there is an effect that occurs in places like Florida if the sea levels rise enough, eventually all the fresh water streams in Florida that flow OUT into the ocean, will have their flow reversed, pushed in by rising seawater. When this happens seawater essentially will contaminate virtually all of the fresh water sources in the entire state, leading to a massive tragedy. Who knows when or if it will happen, but if it does a state of something like 25 million is going to be a lot less pleasant to retire in.

There was a grandiose proposal in the 1950s to divert water from some rivers in Alaska south through Canada via the Rocky Mountain Trench and other routes to the US which would involve 369 separate construction projects. The water would enter the US in northern Montana. Then it would be diverted to the headwaters of rivers such as the Colorado River and the Yellowstone River. It did not go anyway. More info here:

The reason California (and Willamette Valley of Oregon) are so good for growing such a wide range of wine grape varietals is specifically because of the moderate Mediterranean climate and the microclimes provided by the varied geography, conditions that just aren’t as consistent even in the Allegheny Range even with the humidity and weather patterns coming off of the Great Lakes. If Napa, Sonoma, and the Inland Central Coast had more precipitation and shorter seasons characteristic of the Upper Midwest and Appalachia it actually wouldn’t be able to grow delicate varietals that California can grow.

I’ve been pointing out the unsustainable use of the Ogallala Aquifer for years and people look at me like I have a third arm growing out of my forehead. People seem to think that all the water for agriculture in Nebraska, Kansas, Western Oklahoma, and the Texas Panhandle somehow migrates all the way over from the Missouri and Mississippi River systems. But even with the overuse of the Ogallala, the region isn’t in immediate crisis the way California (and now the entire Pacific Northwest) is with the long term severe drought and lack of snowpack to buffer a string of dry years.

Stranger

Unfortunately, what is sustainable farmland in Ohio’s very arable valleys is rapidly turning into suburbs. Where I grew up used to be almost all farm as far as the eye can see, and now is pretty much entirely overgrown with houses and strip malls.

Way to go, Ohio!

The solution seems clear enough to me:

  • Crops that require intense sunlight and reasonable quantities of water → keep in California
     
  • Crops that don’t require intense sunlight, but need copious quantities of water → move to Midwest / East
     
  • Crops that require intense sunlight and copious quantities of water → ban their production entirely, and import from other countries instead

The hard part, as it always is, is getting past all the entrenched political/business interests opposed to this plan.

This. The States and Provinces around the Great Lakes crafted a protection agreement in place after Texas started talking about piping our water down there. I hope it is still in place.

… because other countries don’t have their own water crises?

Why not just stop at the first part (well, not ban, just let market forces do their work and price almonds what they actually cost in water terms) ?

Right now that wouldn’t work, because the cost of water in most of the West does not reflect what it’s really worth. Whether a farmer gets water or not depends on how senior their water rights are. Ideally they should change to an open market where the highest bidder gets the water.

Yes, I agree, that’s why I said “actually cost”

That’s not a bad idea. Pick a sustainable amount of water that can be used for agricultural purposes, then auction it off in blocks.

If almond farmers can make it work charging $50 for a can, then so be it.

Maybe people will switch to buying peanuts, which use less than 10% the water needed for almonds, and can be grown in many more places.

And maybe there becomes a price point where it makes sense to replicate the environment that is conducive to almonds in places where there is more abundant water supplies.

Yup. (See also post #4 in this thread for one of the cites below.)

That is an idea that sounds good in theory but has a lot of issues in practice; essentially, it is going to result in water ‘speculators’ coming in and driving up the costs.

Much of the problem is that the actual use of water for agriculture is largely not sustainable. If sustainability is the goal, we’d have to curtail water use severely, and you can see the response to that in California, especially this year when farmers have just been plowing fields under because they have no water for irrigation. Part of the problem is the long-term drought (whether part of a natural cycle or as a result of climate change, it doesn’t matter) but the reality is that agricultural demand has grown with both increasing population and a more wealthy consumer base demanding water croppage of foods traditionally considered luxuries, e.g. almond milk or avocados. When I can go into a store and get a buy a 48 ounce bag of “Get Carlin’” pistachios on sale for $5.99 in the middle of a decade-long drought, the world is just off-tilt.

Stranger

Then the speculators will have to turn around and resell at a higher price to make a profit. But likely no one’s going to want to buy it at that higher price, so the speculators lose money. This is not a commodity someone can hold onto indefinitely until they find the right buyer. Successfully speculating is going to be a difficult prospect and that will likely scare most, if not all, of them away. The ones that remain will make the market more efficient.

Allocate a specific amount of water that does not get sold and stays in the river. If there’s less than that, there’s no auction and no irrigation.