Wouldn't it make more sense?

[kentuck]

Since we get a large proportion of our fruits and vegetables from the San Joaquin Valley in California and it is experiencing drought conditions, would it not make more sense to make a water pipeline from the glaciers and lakes of Canada, rather than an oil pipeline with the dirtiest oil in the world, such as Keystone XL??

[Liberal Veteran]

1. But the dangers of pure clean water polluting the area along such a pipeline would be significant.

[Cleita]

2. It would be better, but leave it up to the investor class to attempt to

make money from it with the end result being environmental damage and poor Canadians going without water because they can't access a once free resource. If water management were kept within government ownership by both governments as a non-profit commodity, it might work.

However, I always thought the people of a nation should own the resources that come out of the ground like oil, metals, minerals, lumber and water. I always felt all those enterprises should belong to the people, worked by the people for the benefit of the people. We should start by nationalizing all the oil fields.

Oh, and never let them get their hands on the water.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

10. If not nationalize, then tax the hell out of their profits. The wealth of the

nation should benefit the nation rather than a few fortunate businessmen.

[House of Roberts]

3. I have a feeling the GOP would claim the pipeline

would cost the railroad companies too many jobs. That water could be transported in rail tankers instead of a pipeline.

[loudsue]

4. I have thought this for years. That should be part of the infrastructure of the USA

to have water pipeline systems (like the electric power grid) that criss-cross the country, so that hurricane & flood damage can be re-routed to the places that need the water. It could also help put out forest fires in dry areas.

[kentuck]

5. A great idea for infrastructure!

Very forward-looking.

[me b zola]

6. Of course it makes more sense!

But that doesn't make for good disaster capitalism.

[Journeyman]

7. It was proposed and rejected by both nations decades ago. . .

The North American Water and Power Alliance was proposed as a means to pipe water from British Columbia, but it was rejected, in the Marc Reisner's concise phraseology (Cadillac Desert) because "it would largely destroy what is left of the natural west and it might require taking Canada by force."

It was a fascinating intellectual exercise which fit perfectly into the mindset of the mid-twentieth century water industry, but it died "a victim of its own grandiosity."

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

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

[2naSalit]

8. Then again

what about the wildlife that rely on that water and the fact that the wildlife are what are keeping the biosphere habitable? Moving water around on that scale is detrimental to all life in the biosphere. California, where much of the produce is grown, was/is a desert. They only grow stuff there because they already move the water in mass quantities which is what has helped facilitate the conditions form which we all now suffer. Let's just make some more of that.

Also, producing the plants we eat in such a fashion has created a couple of other detrimental aspects to our ability to survive. It is this mono-cropping that has led to the Monsanto affect of GMOs, the rampant use of chemical to make things grow where they shouldn't, perpetuated removal of indigenous peoples from their homes and it has also added to the seemingly easily passed over fact of over population which makes other human ills more widespread (won't go into that for the sake of not ruffling more feathers and getting flamed).

Don't think it's wise.

[lob1]

9. Yes, but what if the water pipeline broke?

Our water supply would be contaminated with Canadian water. How would we ever clean THAT up?