Is 100 gallons/day considered the normal water consumption in the US? (really asking)
I estimate I use, maybe, 35 - 50 gallons/day.
I have a better suggestion: outlaw air conditioning. That would drive 99% of people who live in the desert out of there. Two problems solved at once – water shortage in deserts (who knew there was a lack of water in deserts?) and one large source of fossil-fuel-nightmare consumption.
Also: ever been to the Rockies? As the mechanic says: there’s your problem.
And now runs dry before it reaches the ocean, no?
Why should people who want to live in deserts get to do that to yet more waterbodies?
Well first say goodbye to the electricity produced by the Hoover Dam and other such hydro’s, it would take more energy to pump water into them than what we can recover by releasing that water. But here’s my proposal…
Take the Mississippi river near the mouth, build a dam and pump all that water where it needs to go. Clean up the upstream pollution as part of that process. Install a lock system to allow ships to pass, and a fish ladder though they could use the lock too. Yes environmentally tough cookies for that area, but all and all it’s localized and these things have been know to happen naturally as major rivers have shifted drainages.
From my quick Google last night it seems so here is a pdf from what appears to be the Philadelphia government that says 101.5 and there is this article focusing on LA cities that shows LA averages 78 but Burbank uses 111. I just went with 100 for easy math.
Sure, and ban furnaces and electric heat for the northern tier while you’re at it since they also are a big part of the fossil-fuel-nightmare.
Hell, why not make locavore-ism mandatory by law and not just food – everything. If it’s not grown or manufactured within 100 miles of your house, do without.
Possibly, I’m not aware of that though. This Smithsonian article shows it reaching the ocean thought with a smaller delta than in the 1940s.
I very clearly proposed taking 0.03% of the volume of a river so I’m not sure what that has to do with running it dry. Good question for some one else though.
I guess a related question is why should people who live too far north be allowed to buy food?
That very article you cite mentions that the Colorado river runs dry 50 miles north of the sea.
“McBride knew the delta was suffering, but he was surprised when he visited it for the first time. “I spent two weeks walking the most parched, barren earth you can imagine,” he recalls. “It’s sad to see the mighty Colorado River come to a dribble and end some 50 miles north of the sea.””
See that’s what I get for not reading to the end.
Speaking of fossil water, it would be a better deal to drain Lake Tahoe. It also does not have a very large yearly positive balance, and it would wreak havoc on the downstream environments, but it wouldn’t be as costly as piping the water from elsewhere.
Plus, it would be a net producer of energy since you could have several thousand feet of total head if you channel the water through multiple dams.
I actually think that if we could resist the temptation to entirely drain it, it might make a good pumped storage project. If you have spare electricity you can pump the water back up to any one of the dams, then release it later, and if you need more water at the top you can take it from the lake.
True, that water is right there, and it’s mostly downhill, as you point out. Plus as water levels fell, it’d open up valuable new real estate.
Surely you jest?
Nestle is freely pumping water out of the ground in Michigan, Florida probably elsewhere too, bottling it and selling it.
Sorta like canoeing on the Colorado starting at the headwaters. 
I really hate Nestle but that is a discussion for a different thread (not in GQ).
Those aren’t totally bad ideas. Much like air conditioning, heating buildings can use far, far less fossil fuel through a combination of clever design, and sacrificing the sense of being entitled to waste whatever you can afford to.
The still common belief that we have the right to consume, rape and destroy every single thing on the planet if we feel the need to is the whole basis of the OP, so I should never have stuck my oar in.
The water it delivers would also be pricey. Petroleum pipelines can move product thousands of miles because there’s good money in it. Crude oil is somewhere around $100 a barrel. Potable water is about 63 cents a barrel. If it costs 63 cents a barrel to move oil down a pipe, it’s not a big deal, but that would effectively double the cost of fresh water. Not sure how much it actually costs to pipe liquids long distances, but you can see the economics are quite different for expensive and cheap commodities.
According to this it looks like the cost was about $0.13/gallon/100miles. We’d be looking at ~3,000 miles of pipeline so we’d be looking at $4/gallon just in pipeline maintenance and operating costs.
And if you could mitigate the floods by piping the water elsewhere, we’d already be doing that as a flood prevention measure. The reason we get damaging floods is that they are unpredictable and involve absolutely staggering amounts of water.
Building a system that could take advantage of floods would deliver intermittent floods of water, which I guess would be fine for supplementing dwindling Nevada lakes, while not really improving flooding at the other end, and massively interrupt the ecosystems at both ends. At the intake by building huge flood diversion systems, and at the outlet by pumping in micro-organisms from a completely different ecosystem.
Somewhere, in the hallowed halls of Corporate America, sits a relatively bored executive – blissfully unaware of how it panned out in Bolivia – and wondering how he and his colleagues can commodify municipal potable water delivery.
[People used to ask – if the Middle East wars were about oil, then why hadn’t the price at the pump come down. But my position was always that the wars were – at least to some extent – about controlling the supply of oil. It was fanciful and naïve to think that we would achieve any Main Street level economic benefit for that. The opposite, in fact: to the extent that Western interests did gain control, we – again – privatized the profit and socialized the associated losses (ie, massive externalities, never reasonably allocated/recuperated)]
But I digress …
Water could be viewed just as the economics of almost any natural resource is: at X price, Y recovery/delivery method makes fiscal sense.
I often wonder how we’re (probably barely) keeping those wolves at bay.
And … yeah … Nestlé may not be right for this thread, but it is right in how wrong it is.
Products carried in pipelines are much more valuable than water, so people are willing to pay for their transportation in pipelines. For example, shippers are willing to pay ~$0.60 per barrel (42 gallons) to transport jet fuel from Linden, NJ to La Guardia airport in NYC. This is ~30 miles by road and probably much shorter by pipeline.
Reference: Buckeye Linden tariff schedule https://www.buckeye.com/tariffs/BPL_F440.15.0_AirportsNYC.pdf