Ogallala / High Plains Aquifer: America's Quiet Disaster
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- Overview of the Ogallala / High Plains Aquifer, a large aquifer that is being depleted at an unsustainable rate. This water source is an incredibly important area for agricultural production in the US. I discuss the rate of depletion, future impacts, and potential solutions.
Album displayed: "The Phlorescent Leech & Eddie" (1972)
As a Nebraskan, let me mention a few tidbits. Corn is far and away the largest consumer of irrigation in Nebraska. What might surprise you is humans eat very little of this corn. Much of it is used to feed livestock. While livestock must eat, it doesn't have to be corn. Corn is used because it makes the animals grow ridiculously fast. Another use of corn is ethanol (gasoline additive). That's right we are essentially trading water for fuel for vehicles. While ethanol is cleaner burning than oil based gasoline, it's still not clean. I don't know the percentage of corn grown in Nebraska actually being used for human consumption but I'd venture to say it's under 25%.
This guy doesn't address political decisions that must be made in order to affect the problem. Government support for corn and soybeans has much to do with water usage.
On the national level, 40% of the corn crop goes to produce ethanol. However ethanol distillation also yield feed byproducts so the net is that 25% of the national corn crop is lost from the feed chain by ethanol production. Keep in mind that the remaining 75% is eventually consumed by people. A good portion of that is in the form of meat though.
@@johnfausett3335
Government does a lousy job. Politicians get the pockets lined by these mega corporstions and gladly does them favors in return. It shuns farmers nd ranchers using water and soil regenerative practices.
Growing corn to make ethanol is one of the worst policies ever I think
The aquifer in Nebraska recharges. The water level in the Upper Big Blue NRD (where I farm) is at approximately the same level as it was in 1960.
Depletion and recharge varies drastically across the Ogallala.
The Great Lakes are an INTERNATIONAL body of water, not a matter of merely states. They are regulated by agreements with Canada and not easily tapped for use outside it's watershed.
i’m pretty sure they import stuff from the US too
@@knuthamsun6106 of course. adhering to the same agreement.
Lake Michigan is not with in Canada so they have claim to that lake. Yes Canada has equal say, but let's be honest what could do to stop the United States.
@@paulbadtram748 False, and rather silly. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement includes the entirety of the lakes including Michigan. Look it up.
@@paulbadtram748 Hydrologically, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are the same lake (they're fully connected through the mackinaw straits, have the same surface level, and water freely flows between them). Michigan is protected by the same treaties as Huron.
Two points. First, the Great Plains are considerably higher than the Great Lakes. It costs something like $500 million per year in electricity just to pump water to Los Angeles for non-agricultural use. Can you imagine the cost to pump agricultural quantities of water uphill to the Great Plains? Second, you might not give up beef, but as our agricultural system slowly sputters to a crawl due to decades of neglecting environmental reality, less food will be produced. This will drive up the price of food. When beef is $20/lb instead of $4, a lot people will eat it as a treat and learn to make veggie pizzas, lentil stew, etc. The price difference between plant calories and meat calories will grow until many will be happy to eat a more vegetarian diet to save money. Hungry people aren't as picky as rich folks.
Bingo
Spot on my man
Im guessing you're either from the American Midwest, or a vegetarian, or both.
This is a great point. Lobster used to be a 'poor man's food' until it was overfished.
@@TreyMo69 The main reason it was a considered poor mans food was because rich people and most people in general thought it was disgusting, not because people hadn't overfished it yet, from what I've read/heard about this before. I could be wrong but idk.
I’m a lifetime Nebraskan. I grew up hearing about the Ogallala Aquifer and was raised to respect it and its importance to our state and country. The consumption of bigger and bigger is better that exists in the USA has a lot to do with the overuse of the water and other natural resources. Unfortunately, most people have no idea that this water source even exists because the Great Plains aren’t considered as important as other areas of the country.
No it’s just a common theme of the flyover states to elect officials who practice blatant cronyism and blast solutions as “mArXiSm”. Have fun solving this problem in the future with a massively undereducated society. Maybe god will help or something
We need major lifestyle changes in order to prevent an oncoming disasters
Uh, who’s in charge of convincing the owners of monster trucks and 2-ton SUV’s? Why, it’s their god-given right to drive big and have cheap gas for heavens sakes.
It’s consider “flyover country,” and most people don’t know a thing about it. But thanks to Kyle we viewers are learning more about it!
@@chasbodaniels1744 Personal choice vs. government choice. We aren't supposed to be Red China, but folks of your mentality want control. What's that got to do with the subject of this video?
I live in SE Wyoming, over this aquifer. It’s SO DRY here. When we see rain clouds, we get excited, but they frequently just keep on moving without dropping any rain.
I live in seattle, this rain gets old and makes everyone wanna jump off a bridge long before summer finally shows up. i so wish these clouds could dump on you instead
Southern Wyoming is a desert continued from Utah.
@@knuthamsun6106 rainkakke
Australia and New Zealand grow far more sheep than cattle because they use far less water and can far more brackish water than cattle. The wool can be used to lesson the use of cattle. Lamb meat is a luxury meat in North America because 90% of it is imported from New Zealand and Australia. This would reduce the price for it considerably. Old mines can also be a viable option for hydroponic vegetable operations as well. They experimented with this in one of the old mines in Flin Flon Manitoba and although it was successful for growing it wasn't feasible in such a remote area. But as growing becomes much more difficult it might be a solution, like old malls, for regional supplies. Thank you for this video, no shortage of food for thought with this!!!
Solid information. Thank you
I'll take lamb over beef any day!
Sheep in New Zealand are predominantly hill country while beef and dairy are flats. Generally rainfall is sufficient, some flatland areas have irrigation to increase productivity in summer months.
Grain is subsidised in many countries so the international market price is permanently depressed. If subsidies where removed New Zealand would probably convert some dairy to grain. Much marginal hill country farmland is being planted in tress for carbon credits.
Who will be most and least screwed by rising food prices? Five countries (China, Korea, Japan, Russia and Saudi Arabia) are responsible for about 40% of food net imports and seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and USA) account for about 55% of total food net exports.
Sheep are grown?
@@ge2623 you plant sheep seeds.
I am a professional hydrogeologist. A primary cause of the problem is the lack of a national water policy - or call it an aquifer-specific water policy. Each state has taken what it wants. Some states prohibit "mining" an aquifer - taking more out than is recharged, but some states allow it. Overall, the Ogallala has been over-allocated for decades and we are seeing the impact. This is NOT solely a climate change issue as it has been going on since the 60's. There is no real solution except to cut drastically back on usage - at a minimum matching withdrawals to recharge - and there is no political will to do that. Consequently, drastic cuts in usage will occur anyway in many parts of the aquifer that will cease to yield economic quantities of water in the coming decades - depending where you are. Tapping floodwaters is not a solution because of the general short duration of the floods and the rate of water transfer from the flood to the aquifer needed to be beneficial. Additionally, the ability of the aquifer to accept that high rate of water is very problematic from a large number of factors. ...think large lakes as recharge basins. Additionally, putting water into the aquifer in Nebraska will have no appreciable effect for decades. Do the math.
Thank you for your presentation. Too bad nothing will happen, even if it was remotely feasible. The hurt is coming. Get ready for very serious water wars, not just over the Ogallala, but pretty much everywhere west of the Mississippi.
You're absolutely right on this, the pain will be felt far and wide.
Great post. What are your thoughts on how perennial grains would alter the situation?
@@reg4211 Not sure. As a geologist, I am do not know much about plants and the water demands of the various species. Gotta stick to what I know....
@@timkenyon6088 understood. (I'm neither of those professions - just a homesteader with concerns)
I see the data of how much less irrigation, (also less chemical fertilizer and how much topsoil would be retained, and im guessing more water recharged) in the growing of perennials im sadly disappointed that we aren't aggressively developing these things to produce plants that can serve as both living watershed and sufficient food cropping in order to save the aquifers.
Recognizing - well its not business savvy so... ☹️makes me sad.
Thanks for yr info 😎
@@reg4211 Do some research on biochar and building a living soil. There are ways to regenerate "dead soil" so it supports a rich soil microbiota, and in turn this creates a rich, moist soil that actually accumulates nutrients and reduces erosion.
Apparently the Amazon is actually the result of both natural and man-made processes of enriching the soil over centuries using the charred plant fibers of past crops and other forest growth. Researchers believe the rich soil is a remnant of past agricultural activity that understood regenerative practices rather than depletion like our modern agriculture.
People forget that Arizona is a desert. The rate of growth there is unsustainable.
They're building multi-family homes in every lot that you can see in the Phoenix metro area.
The Greater Phoenix suburban sprawl is genuinely some of the worst shit I've ever seen and the fact that these places are growing so rapidly is just sad. The Phoenix metro area is nothing but a dystopian car centric wasteland and might be even worse than Houston
Also these places in the southwest that are growing rapidly today will inevitably need to be abandoned in like 50 years when the sweltering heat makes human life impossible there
@@chairmanlmao4482 They're building multi-family homes in every lot that you can see in the suburbs. Crazy.
It's a bit tough NOT to hop on cars because the high temperature can be deadly.
Don't forget that Buckeye, AZ supposedly want to become the size of Phoenix with an equal population. Interstate 11 would fuel this growth quickly if and when it would be constructed.
@@danielkoon1016 It feels like Buckeye is known or Sun City is known for its retirement community
@@Aidan_Au Sun City definitely has a wider reputation for retirees but I do believe Buckeye is attempting to diversify their economy.
A good chunk of the growth that may happen is reliant upon interstate 11 and the various economic benefits that are brought with a new instate being construction.
All of this is still years away from starting.
Great lakes do not just belong to the United States, don't forget Canada. While Lake Michigan is totally within the United States as we know it is connected to Lake Huron making both lakes one body of water. In 1982, Congress mandated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study the feasibility of using Great Lakes water to replenish supplies needed for the heavily agricultural Plains states. (It wasn't feasible.)
US: Welp... looks like Canada is making WMDs now
Canada: No, we're a peaceful people. We don't want war, bud
US: Loads AR-15
Canada has the most freshwater of any country in the world, and a relatively low population, and we should feel bad?
A study done in 1982? Computer technology and agricultural innovations have come a long way since then chief.
@@Roadtripmik That’s not true. Brazil, by a huge margin, has the most fresh water resources. Russia is second. The US and Canada are pretty much tied for 3rd and 4th.
Canada needs to liberated
Diverting water from the Great Lakes would be a terrible mistake. If the water levels go down any lower than they already are, it will have a major impact on the international shipping using the Seaway. A lot of goods, commodities, grains, oil, etc, transit through it to and from these interior ports, both in the US and Canada. There are already speed limits in place in many areas to mitigate the squatting effect of boats as sometimes there are merely a few inches of water under the boats when they're full and heavy. Any less water and ships could run aground, more dredging would be needed (not good), or loads would need to be lightened, which I don't think would be very popular amongst shipowners worldwide...
why is more dredging bad
@@rtovatt6642 It's bad for the environment. It entails digging the riverbed deeper, which changes the natural environment of that part of the river, kills, amongst other things, all the bottom dwellers who helps with the decomposition of all kinds of materials and are part of the food chain, displaces sediments which can lift up heavy metals and other pollutants putting them back in the river flow, etc. Also, all of these sediments needs to be disposed of somewhere, so it affects other areas along the river or on the mainland if they dumped them somewhere. All that soil would need to be decontaminated. It also lowers the water levels nearer to the shore as more water flows in the now deeper part, drying up crucial reproduction areas for many species, marshes, recreational areas, etc. The cycle of bad just goes on and on. These effects could be felt from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean.
@@rtovatt6642 and there already limits on how much you should eat from some of the Great Lakes due to the heavy metal exposure
Understanding the problem so we can understand the solution. Regional mega drought in the southwest, caused by a lot of things but essentially more water is being used and is in one way or another moved out of the region then the amount of water that is re-entered into the region. Conservation has its place but it is not a solution to this problem. The demands on water will not abate without causing complete collapse so the only alternative is to introduce a new source of water. Drawing water from other regional rivers like the Columbia or the Mississippi or Missouri would only move the problem around, draining other regions. The only essentially inexhaustible source of water is the ocean.
One thing we need to do is move water from the ocean back inland to places we need it and if we can do that while generating clean energy we have a chance to mitigate climate change and still have a prosperous future. It is really, really hard but it is not impossible.
If I could explain my idea in an equation it would go something like. (seawater from the west coast moved inland + converted by combination geothermal/desalination projects = clean water and clean energy.) The biggest idea I am trying to express is tunneling aqueducts from the coast, in this case the west coast of the USA inland to feed combination geothermal power and sea water desalination plants. The idea seems to be so big that no one has considered it possible but I believe it is not only possible but it is necessary. For over a century the fossil water contained in aquifers has been pumped out to feed agriculture, industry and municipal water needs. The natural water cycle cant refill fossil water deposits that were filled 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Without refilling these aquifers there is not much of a future for the region of the United states. As a result ground levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have subsided by more than 30 feet. Similar fossil water depletion is happening in other regions all around the world. TBM and tunneling technology has matured and further developments in the industry are poised to speed up the tunneling process and it's these tunnels that are the only way to move large volumes of water from the ocean inland. The water is moved inland to areas where it can be desalinated in geothermal plants producing clean water and power. In many cases the water will recharge surface reservoirs where it will be used first to make more hydro power before being released into rivers and canal systems. It's very important however to not stop tunneling at these first stops but to continue several legs until the water has traveled from the ocean under mountain ranges to interior states. Along the way water will flow down grade through tunnels and rise in geothermal loops to fill mountain top pumped hydro batteries several times before eventually recharging several major aquifers. What I am proposing is essentially reversing the flow of the Colorado River Compact. Bringing water from the coast of California first to mountaintop reservoirs then to the deserts of Nevada and Arizona and on to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. This big idea looks past any individual city or states problems and looks at the whole and by using first principles identifies the actual problem and only solution. Thank you for your time, I would like the opportunity to explain in further detail and answer any questions.
@@DavidElzeitsinfill thank you for the interesting and grand ideas, David! I remember speaking with an Israeli engineer many years ago at a dinner party. He was telling me how desalination plants had helped cities grow and the desert to bloom, but it was not a robust system. The high energy needs, technical complexities which were prone to breakdown and the vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks were some of the problems. That was quite awhile ago, and if any nation could have solved the technological issues, it would be Israel. Much of those weaknesses may not apply in the US in this modern era, but could the companies building and operating the system you propose be relied upon to engineer and maintain it for extreme geological and weather events? The utter failure of the Texas power grid during the blizzard last year is an example of corporate negligence and hubris leading to widespread suffering is an apt cautionary tale. Any thoughts on how we can ensure that corporations and regulatory agencies will ensure that your proposed complex system is robust and adaptable? In other words, I feel we can meet the technological and engineering hurdles, but corruption and a lack of political will may not allow the high standards required for safe, reliable long term use to be met. Any thoughts?
Couple things as an ex nebraskan of 20 years.
1. It's almost entertaining to me that Nebraska is now fighting Colorado over water because Kansas has been fighting Nebraska over water for a good couple decades now too. All over some agreement that was made back in the early 1900s that Nebraska would guarantee so much water through the republican river to Kansas.
2. I think a big part of the solution to the water problem is we stop growing so dang much corn and soybeans. It astounds me how much land productivity is wasted for corn just to be inefficiently turned into ethanol, another version of sugar, fattier beef, and so much more. Soybeans are also in way more products than they need to be. Soap scrubs, half of all our processed foods, and all sorts of other luxury items no one needs. If half the land that was being used for corn and soybeans was used for actual produce items, we'd feed the world over. That being said, the produce items take a lot of water too, but it's just a huge waste in my mind how much of 2 crops are raised when the only reason they are is because lobbyists say so.
Ditto!
It’s common sense, and saves money, lives, and resources over the long term..
The huge Arkansas River in western Kansas has been dry for almost 30 years. Kansas sued Colorado in federal court to release "natural flow" from two dams in Colorado. Kansas won the suit but Colorado refuses to release more water
@@samscott2661 couldn't even keep rain water because of you frickin Kanass couldn't retain water for longer than 72hrs because of Kanass and certainly couldn't get water from the Arkansas because of Kanass. When you come to Colorado and you find someone flipping you off that would be me asshats
Because sir, money makes the world go round.
Always has.
Change the money factor, change the dynamic.
I am a hydrogeologist in Europe with 30 years international experience of groundwater management. Big engineering projects and diversions are not a vialble solution. As has been shown with the Colarado River, it doesn't compensate for over use, but just delays the problem. Agriculture in California has continued to grow despite it being known for decades that its not sustainable. Diversions are also highly damaging to the natural environment and species. We neeed to do our best to reduce further impact on those. What needs to happen is to adapt to the natural reality. There are only a limited amound of renewable resources in the Ogallala aquifer. The USA needs to make groundwater the property of the federal government (as you are kind of suggesting for the Great Lakes - which I don't agree with). Then water experts need to do studies to define the maximum amount of annual water use that is available and sustainable - for people, farming and nature. Then all abstractions must be permitted with a limit on how much can be drawn. At first, this will mean reducing the amount of water that is pumped by many. You have no other choice. History has shown that agricultural innovations have enabled each acre of land to produce more and more food. This can also be achieved with each drop of water. Effiicent drip irrigation must be used everywhere. And when the growing capacity is reached, then the USA must adapt to find other places to grow the food needed which can include increasing imports. Big engineering projects and diversions that damage nature are not a sustainable solution. We also need healthy and abundant nature and species for our wellbeing. Look up ecosystem services and natural capital. The European Water Framework Directive is an excellent model. It requires the countries of the European Union to do just as I suggest. It als requires them to better manage and reduce water pollution. Europe is begining to recover from big water problems and to be much better prepared for a sustainble future - in an area with a larger population than the USA on a small land area.
We don't need the Federal Government controlling underground water resources in our states. That'll lead to water usage being controlled by politicians from all 50 states and the party that's in power. The Feds use to have control over the extraction of minerals, coal and oil-natural gas in all the states until the later 1930's Supreme Court case returned mineral rights back to the states. We already have a problem with the EPA declaring people's property being protected wetlands if it gets flooded for a short time due to man-made changes in the terrain that directs more runoff from rain onto their land.
Great video !!
I live in Central Arizona and water is precious and scarce in places.
The city of Prescott won an international award for its unique plan to recharge the aquifer by recycling its treated wastewater back into the ground.
I'm building an aquaphonic greenhouse to reuse 95% of my water.
I'm also using a rainwater catchment system for the greenhouse and permaculture landscaping on the land to conserve the 14" of annual precipitation here.
We all need to rethink our water use as there's only one water and it's the same water the dinosaurs used.
Keep the videos coming !
Born and raised in Arizona and hopefully soon I’ll be able to own my own little slice of this state too - what you’re doing out there is what I’ve been dreaming about doing since I was in middle school, sounding like a rambling psycho - keep fighting the good fight
I’m from Michigan. The last time I flew to Phoenix, as we were circling to land, I looked out the airplane window and saw a giant ornamental fountain, just spraying water up into the (maybe 5-10% humidity) air. It was in the middle of a lake, surrounded by multiple very green golf courses. At that point I knew the answer was “No! We’re not sending you our water.” If you want water, come live in Michigan.
@@sc100ott
I spent the best years of my life on a farm in the U.P. in Chatham.
We had plenty of water then and I'd catch brook trout in the crick at the end of our driveway.
Now Superior is down four feet and doesn't freeze over anymore so it's evaporationg during the winter..
My cousin and I rode our snowmachines across to Canada once in the 70s, can't do that anymore either.
I'm a retired mechanical engineer and a scientist who is studying these events and believe it's a cycle and has happened many times during the life of our earth.
We need to work with Mother earth not against her.
I'm off grid even thought there's power and community water line on my south fence. I'll never tie into them and develop ways of conserving resources.
@@charleshughbryan5603 FWIW, the UP still has plenty of water. As of this month, Lake Superior is a few inches above its historical average for May. Lakes Michigan and Huron were very near historic highs in the past two years, but are dropping a bit closer to historical average this year. If you look at long-term data, the current trends all look like normal variations. I’m very jealous that you could catch brookies at the end of your driveway, though. 👍🏻
@@sc100ott
I'm glad the averages are stabil.
My cousin lives in Munising and had told me awhile back it was way down, she said 4 feet.
I thought it would be great to dive in the Alger county underwater museum on the wrecks while it's down and take my boat to the pictured rocks.
I'm envious that you live there and can have great fishing and pasties anytime.
I remember hearing this almost exactly 50 years in an ecology 101 class. A billion more people in the world since then and we are fatter than ever.
The Great Lake States are in no way ethically obligated to give the plains unlimited water that would be pumped uphill at great cost so they can waste it on beef production. When water gets scarce, grow something more environmentally friendly, and then look for help with water sources.
Edit: Furthermore, it seems quite ridiculous to me that many would go to such lengths and technical fixes before even considering eating a few less steak dinners.
Well said. Even using it to grow more in the Great Lakes region to support steak dinners would be more sustainable
You will see the cost in the supermarket. Remember your short sighted views. Grow your own food in the fridgid north.
@@rogersmith7396 the Great Lakes are hardly unable to grow crops. Much of the cost of food is driven by the wasteful beef and dairy industries anyway.
Lol yall all sound crazy, if its needed, it will happen. Believe that.
@@Desnes7 The Great Lakes compact forbids removing water from the watershed. There is no way any of the Great Lake states would allow it.
Thank you for directing our attention to a mounting problem. Something has to be done Stay safe
The problem with using the Great Lakes as a syphon for other states being terrible with water management is that it just pushes the problem down the road and would immediately cause massive environmental issues through the Great Lakes Region. Still enjoyed the video nonetheless
You say other states that are terrible with water management but I guarantee you the Great Lake states are far worse at water management since they prob think they have tons of it
@@mtgo9686 I mean... golf courses should exist anywhere in the Southwest yet they are there in plenty. This isn't complicated. I'm guessing you thought you did something there tho. It's called using within your means.
@@charleskummerer every state has golf courses, and I can guarantee you that every state mismanages water resources but what do you think is more likely, the states with very limited water waste more or the states with abundant water waste more. And if you are saying that the states with no water should use within their means and that states with a lot of water own all that water then how bout those states can grow and feed all their food themselves too
@@mtgo9686 Golf courses in places where there are massive forests and plains is very different from golf courses in literal deserts...
@@charleskummerer golf courses anywhere are environmentally bad. also looks like you're enjoying the West or Southwest in your profile picture.
Love your videos but I have to disagree with this one. As a native Michigander who has been eating mostly plant-based for years, I’ll take fewer $2 cheeseburgers if it means not slowly draining the Great Lakes.
I have sort of kicked the cheeseburger habit. You realize it is a habit and don't miss it much. We are propagandized to eat a lot of stuff we don't really need or even like.
@@rogersmith7396 like plant based items. Gross. 😂
No one said drain the lakes. However, diverting some water shouldn’t be a big deal. How many cities on the lake take from them already?
Taking water from the great lakes is probably a moot point... The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada likely means that we wouldn't be able to take water from the great lakes even if we were able to create the infrastructure to do so. The Mississippi is probably fair game however.
@@vonSoest Diverting water is a big deal. Any location outside the basin of the lakes requesting water requires the approval of all 8 bordering states per the Great Lakes Compact, and being approved generally means you need to be able to return that water as seen in examples like Waukesha, WI. There's no realistic way to pipe agriculturally useful quantities of water all the way to the Great Plains without unsustainable loss.
Water issues are going to define the next century for the western US. Obviously we know about the Colorado River crisis, so it's great this video reminds people of the Ogallala aquifer problems. Lifestyle changes may happen not by choice, but because reality is dictating the terms. I love my beef as much as anyone but I'm willing to cut down on consumption if it helps as part of the overall solution. Or, it might just become an expensive delicacy.
Meanwhile, let's not forget Canada very likely will have strong opinions about The Great Lakes!
I kinda hate the fact we're cursed with living in "interesting times". Keep up the informative videos!
I think I’m gonna stay in New England. We get more water than we could possibly use
You are funny!! Define the next century??? Buddy that is 80 years away!! Get real!! This is going to be a major problem before 2030. Do you think TEAM BIDEN even cares???
@@ecurewitz That must be nice! We've been having more fires and water shortages than ever here near Denver. Unfortunately, I was never alive to see what Colorado was like without drought.
I doubt very much that Humans have 10 years remaining on Earth. Climate Scientists agree with me, also.
@@infinitespace8313 why don’t you move here. It is expensive and the weather set great, but we also have (smaller) mountains, and we have beaches too!
As a Nebraskan, thank you for not even mentioning the fact that Nebraska has lots of surface water canals that are being used to positively recharge the aquifer. It showed up in all of your diagrams and maps that Nebraska is recharging instead of depleting the aquifer. This seems like it should at least be worth mentioning.
I appreciate you highlighting this issue! In my opinion, just because we eat meat doesn't mean we need to eat *this much* meat, and especially this much beef. None of the rest of the world does outside of a few countries in the Americas. Other parts of the world feature meat in dishes, where we eat it like it barely needs accompaniment. We can eat less meat, particularly beef, without going full veggie. It remains pertinent that we use more land to grow vegetables for livestock to eat than we do for ourselves, and more land is devoted to raise livestock than anything else in this country. That's a lot of resources. It would never have been possible without American soils and aquifers. But those things aren't guaranteed if we don't live in balance. Speaking of which, we have about 60 years of good topsoil left. Who is even talking about it? Where is the political organization? Where is the concern of the people? This is a finite world-we can't expect infinite growth out of it. Whether in soil usage, water usage or economies.
Preach 🙏
Ok Doomer
With all due respect, any solutions to these profound issues are pure fantasy. Our so called leaders are swimming in self serving gluttony these days. The consequences of these things don’t concern them. You’re hoping for things that simply won’t happen. I just make the most of everyday and never had kids. Good luck to the world…or rather humanity, should say.
the current American demand for beef is completely unsustainable, kind of like the wide-open border policy -which ALSO massively impacts aquifer and wildlife habitat conservation, as sierra club attested before they were told to cool it against the population replacement plans of the powers that be
yep we are meat-eating omnivores but incisors do not mean our ancestors ate factory farmed cattle nor anywhere near as much meat as we do. I support hunting and gun rights, i’m conservative as it gets but I haven’t eaten red meat in over 25 years, which is probably why I still get carded when buying beer
I just gotta say that is some of the most respectful and intelligent comment section that i’ve seen on youtube haha. great video even though I disagree with your solutions like most others seem to here. Too many nuances and negatives to the great lakes and mississippi river strategies. Technology or a new source will not be the answer to this, unless we’re talking ocean water. But the main action needs to come from society changes.
I agree with all you said Lol, GK’s comments restore my faith in humanity
I appreciate your concern for high plains aquifer, worrisome indeed but the great lakes are most definitely not part of the solution. They have a relatively small drainage basin and thus it would be unsustainable to divert water. Surely you are not suggesting to recreate the same problem (drawing more than is replenished) in another part of the country?
Enjoy your videos, ty
Have to agree with you and disagree with Kyle here, draining the great lakes is not the answer, and should not be considered in any way.
I’d worry about taking the floor water from the Mississippi river region too, because the eco system there is used to the flooding. Diverting the water away could have unforeseen environmental consequences in both the regions.
And the great lakes could be more valuable in the future than we realize. It’s not worth affecting them to save this part of the country when other solutions are available, such as The Gulf solution.
Ocean water desalination will likely have to be a large percentage of the future source of water for the US. And with rising sea levels, it makes sense to me to take from a source that is rising rather than depleting one without replenishing.
Exactly! The lakes may be huge, but the sources feeding them are not. The current line 5 issue shows just how heated the great lakes states get when anything threatens the lakes.
Guys Kyle is just exploring any and all options to keep meat in his diet. I mean there’s five Great Lakes Nebraska can’t have just one so Kyle doesn’t have to go vegetarian. :)
@@Nosameerf1799 Unfortunately it's not a feasible option. The other commentators are correct in that the Great Lakes aren't replenished in large enough volume for diversion to be sustainable, and besides, 4 of the 5 lakes are international and managed in conjunction with Canada, who will NOT be agreeing to allow diversions. And you can't just pull from the 5th lake that is completely in the US because all the Lakes are connected to form a system, thus any diversion from one would affect them all. Which is why Canada would block.
@@rfranklin3000 Oh I totally agree. I was just joking. Your exactly right about the lakes sharing shoreline with Canada, like you said they obviously would shut it down. And draining the 5th one wouldn’t make any sense unless it was sustainable or necessary for crops to be raised which wouldn’t be necessary considering the rest of the country is capable of supporting our country’s agriculture needs even if that entire aquifer dried up.
There millions of acres of land just in the middle of the interstate system between lanes that could be farmed in areas with adequate growing conditions. We also export a large portion of the grain raised in that region anyway so it’s not like we would starve if the aquifer were to dry up. Thanks!
You don't need to go vegetarian to reduce your water footprint, you just need to switch to chicken instead of beef. 1 kg of beef requires upto 4x the water required to get 1 kg of chicken meat.
You have some of the best geographic content out there. I really appreciate you bringing up such an important topic as the Ogallala aquifer. A foot decrease in depth a year?!? That's insane! As someone from Louisiana, I'm pretty skeptical of water diversion policy because of how much stabilizing the Mississippi river has screwed up Louisiana hydrology and lead to coastal erosion/land loss. As someone growing up in this chaotic time where we are seeing the world suffer from our over consumption, I've chosen to reevaluate my needs as a consumer. The science is clear that America cannot sustain it's current agricultural practices. We have to make a choice, is the taste of meat worth literally sucking the ground dry? The leading cause of fish imperilment and extinction in Western states is due to alfalfa irrigation for cattle (Richter et al. 2020, Nature sustainability). Our children will not see the beauty of the American outdoors if something doesn't change.
Pipelines always leak. Always, and, this aquifer was in the News just a few years back. Also, remember Ryan Zinke brought fracking to the United States?
My thoughts are the u.s should concentrate more on just growing what we need in the u.s.a not depleting our resources feeding other countries. We'd need less and therfore use less.
They were afraid that the Mississippi would return to it's old channel when the Morganza Dam was shaking like a leaf during a flood in the early 70's. That would've turned the riverbed into one long giant mudflat all the way down to the delta.
One of the problems is that once you set up the infrastructure to divert water and start pumping from anywhere, then entitlement and rights are instantiated. If the source water itself later becomes challenged and the diversion needs to stop, then it's years in court with expensive legal battles before conservation can occur.
Three years ago when the Platte River(s) and Missouri were flooding everything in their paths, I was visiting Nebraska and asked locals if there were Injection Wells to replenish the Ogalala Aquifer and they didn’t know what I was talking about…. Nuff said…
Too frickin stupid can't regulate their own intake greedy bastard$
It seems that a direct feed into the Ogalala Aquifer from the Mississippi makes sense and cents.............But, the only thing or government and TV broadcast is rising sea levels and no one really knows about the eventual reality of our country going bone dry!
Don't think Nebraska is that smart
Wouldn't want a pesky thing like filtration for that water... too many people not enough carrying capacity for the land. No different than any other species.
Nuff said about what?. How tf do you expect locals to know about the Ogalala Aquifer? They don't teach you this shit in public school. Lol
Perhaps you should've asked the people who are actually responsible in that area of expertise, or some politicians.. Nuff said... 🥴 Fucking dork. Lol
For the great lakes you should also consider Canada not only those states.
It's only Ontario that borders the great lakes
@@ilajoie3 Yes, and that's Canada
he said province too
he said that it was a 'national treasure', national implying one nation (US)
Wrong, Quebec is also affected, being on the St. Lawrence River.
They have been sounding the alarm on the Ogallala Aquifer for at least 50 years that I know of. Talked about it in Ag school at ISU in 1980. The problem is Americans don't react to upcoming emergencies, they only react when the emergency hits.
You wont see these issues discussed on the (mainstream media) . What is not funny is living in this day and age of so much access to (news) sources and information they keep people on a constant stream of drivel. This being a serious issue means they would run from it. Awesome to see someone posting content like this the world needs more of it. TY
This is an important problem. Thank you for bringing attention to it.
It’s only been recently that I’ve learned the amount of land, water, and agricultural resources dedicated to raising cattle, and I was raised in Texas. Knowing the power wielded by the cattle industry, I don’t have a positive view of the possibility of self policing entities taking steps to resolve these issues. Knowing the obstinacy of the general public, I don’t see much help there, either. Not a pretty picture for my grandkids.
They will be importing water from the asteroid belt, I wouldn’t sweat it
@@ugiswrong Sure.
@@ugiswrong After that they'll drag some of the icy moons of the solar system closer to the sun and take the water from them
The farmers don't benefit due to monopolistic big ag. Give them something with more profit and they would change.
People act like water is a consumable resource that is gone once it has been consumed in some way.
We pretty much have the same amount of water on the planet as we started out with. Some of it is less drinkable. Some of it is a bit too salty. But we can't really run out of water. Just the drinkable share of it. If we rely on a balance in nature to maintain enough fresh water for us to consume and keep using more fresh water faster than it can become drinkable fresh water again, then we have problems. I hardly think gathering water from the outer edges of the solar system would ever be a necessary part of it.
I appreciate your attention to this issue and love your content. All solutions you mentioned must be included. Let's all admit we're not the experts on the solution and defer to the policy and technical experts unless we're willing to do the research ourselves. From my side as a water resources engineer all I can say is that any of the diversion solutions mentioned here will likely be far outside of the realm of economic feasibility. Thanks again!
As someone who worked in economic development in North Dakota and saw the fight between frackers and farmers over the Missouri just in our state, I'd further add that any diversion solutions are also far outside the realm of political feasibility as well. The Mississippi and its major tributaries - the Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers - flow through 29 states. You think they're going to reach a new agreement to divert water out West? Not to mention all the shipping, agriculture, and oil and mining interests involved? Never gonna happen, even if if made sense financially.
Now not tomorrow. Lights are going to go off in the SW and no more water. Do you think anyone will care?
Have you forgotten that Canada MIGHT have something to say if the United States started diverting water from the Great Lakes? I don't know much about Canadian hydrology or water use but I would think Canada would basically "pitch an international fit".
Nah, it'll be fine
i live in Quebec and we strongly depend on the St-Lawrence river which feeds from the great lakes, i'm sure most people here including myself would disagree that this is a good solution
he said province too
@T B And given that several of those states are fortunately swing states when it comes to presidential elections, I suspect that both political parties would strongly object, even if only for their own selfish desire to be electable in those states! As a Wisconsin resident, I certainly don't want to see a drop of Great Lakes water diverted outside the watershed, and the same is probably true of 99% of midwest residents.
A other great option is to
1. Reduce meat consumption, quality over quantity and
2. Somehow regulate western states to reduce unnecessary water consumption, i.e. too many golf courses, too many yards...in the desert...and hope nature evens things out a bit for the west and perhaps we'll see a domino effect
Argritucltre uses 80+% of the wests water.
Hate to say it but I think as a country we shouldn’t be exporting food . Maybe only to our closest friends. Why are we exporting so much to China and other unfriendly nations?
Just keep in mind that regulating a lot of the agriculture in the West, especially in California, would mean far fewer veggies, fruits, garlic, almonds, etc for everyone.
And also, a species stupid enough to think that rains follow the plow and that you can EVER sustainably turn a desert into farmland is likely not clever enough to think its way out of that predicament.
@@smurfslut487 sell critical resources like food, water, and fuels to your enemies so they can't cross you without risking getting cut off and suffering from a famine, water shortage, or fuel shortage. (It can back fire but Russia supplying Nat Gas to Europe has long been lamented as a geopolitical strategic weakness)
Step 1 for the west is to change crops to something sensible, water intensive crops like pomegranates and almonds should not be grown in the desert, or atleast should be watered by a desalination plant selling water at market value. (Which is expensive frim a desalination plant)
And rule #1 of lawns is that if you have to water it regularly (ie, not for 1 week in the summer tops) then your climate doesn't support lawns and you should go with something more locally appropriate.
Unless they can manage being as sustainable as the natural grassland, they should convert areas back, bc that IS. Try no-till, permaculture, etc.
Awe come on, gotta have lush green golf courses in the sandhills...
Btw, there are actually golf courses in the sandhills. Ive seen pictures.
Things like this are why I can't believe people see declining birth rates as a crisis.
Yup, we need to learn how to do economics without needing the next generation to be larger than the previous.
@@brianfox771 It sounds nice, but I’m not sure what our solution might be. Declining young populations really seems to be a slow moving crisis for society.
@@StreetcarHammock It's a man made crisis; we choose to do economics this way and we don't have to. We do it this way because it is the most profitable to the ultra wealthy and multinational corporations, not because it is beneficial to the average person. We go around collecting the crumbs and bits of dust left over from their activities. Regardless, even if we reverse population decline, automation and AI are going to put almost everyone out of work within the next century anyway.
I’m from Nebraska and have lived out in the Sandhills so thanks for covering this very important issue. One part of the solution to our water shortage is switching away from industrial agricultural to a more sustainable model.
Hey me too! I'm an environmental policy student in college and I've written papers about how Nebraska's liberal land and water conservation policies should be implemented in other states.
Won't happen as long as congress is owned by companies like ADM, Cargill, Dekalb and others.
I definitely think that step 1 is adjusting agriculture to more sustainable practices. (I despise California for having a canal from north to south just to grow the litteral most water intensive crops like pomegranates, avocados, and almonds in the desert when every year they have record droughts, its just dumb water policy)
Once efficiency is increased look at ways to get more water in the region, a cheap option is instead of piping water up hill have coastal cities drink desalinated water so the inland region can use more of its local water. (Its already using more than it gets, which is the entire root cause of the problem in the first place)
Its kinda like how vegas has decorative water fountains and green grass lawns in a desert and wonders why lake mead is dropping like a rock. Every region recieves X inches of rain equivalent a year, integrate over the land area and you get your total water input, subtract how much naturally drains away and thats your budget for how much you have to ration out between all consumers like nature, drinking water, agriculture, industry, ect. Go over budget and you will eventually run out of water in your aquafir/resevoirs bank.
And as a upstate NYer i am 1000% against diverting water from the lakes, ignoring all the environmental, shipping, cultural, and international relations impacts, we get a TON of electricity from them, barely any water goes over Niagara falls anymore cause its all diverted for hydro with just enough saved for them to look pretty for tourists, and the ST Lawrence gives about a Gigawatt to Canada and to America (2GW total capacity) and hydro dams from the 60s have already sunk cost their environmental damage so diverting water is literally hurting our objectives to make the grid net zero.
There is a reason the great lakes region is so touchy about our lakes, its like suggesting we cut down the redwood forrests or drink the Mississippi dry, they are more than just a body of fresh water. (Lake Erie even has legal rights against fertalizer pollution from farmers causing toxic algea blooms. The Lake itself has the rights, not any environmentalist organization, the Lake is functionally a person with a right to good health in the eyes of the law)
@@jasonreed7522 Those redwoods were already mostly cut down. Regarding the Mississippi, see the comments from the folks from Louisiana. We need longer term thinking and much better understanding to find a balance.
yes Yes YES
I've lived in Kansas and Nebraska almost my entire life and I grew up on a farm. Thanks for pointing out a looming crisis for our farmers.
I'm about to finish my B.S. in Geography from NSU in Oklahoma. This issue is one of biggest challenge for our country and yet, so few people know about it. Keep up the great content, my friend.
Do you want your student loans forgiven?
I'm probably slow, been binging on your vids for the last few months and just noticed your photo of Flo and Eddie. Definitely a fan for life now.
Thanks! I'm glad you found the channel and enjoy the videos
I have to disagree with you: The main solution has to be lifestyle changes, not technological chances. The diversion of flood water from the Missouri is the only technological chance you mention that is sustainable. Diversion of water from the Great Lakes is just migrating the problem of overuse of water from the Ogallala aquifer to another place.
Agree. There will be forced lifestyle changes as the cost of beef continues to rise. There are plenty of animal substitutions for beef that use far less water. That also means the cost of dairy will go way up as well.
This is a cool channel. I love how you don't just go all hero and instead you admit you're human and have human desires like meat. That is something that garners sympathy vs people who just say oh you have to do it like this which makes people capable of change to say no. You rock my geology friend.
We had a similar situation here in California. There was a HUGE
aquifer in the central valley. This aquifer was over 200 miles long
and who knows how wide but it was A LOT. Business sees natural
resources as something to harvest. That includes AG. The monster
farms on top of this aquifer had been pumping it out since 1920?
Eventually they pulled SO MUCH water out that the ground began
to settle. Finally the aquifer, pumped mostly dry, collapsed. So
now that 200 mile long aquifer is not more. it is filled with dirt.
The oil industry has pipelines criss crossing this country from
one end to the other. Why cant they build some pipelines from
say Texas to the arctic? From California to the Arctic. We have
the tech & Canada is out friends.
!
I actually just spent the last couple days driving around western Kansas & and the TX/OK panhandles. It is exceptionally dry there right now and no end is in near term sight. Truly depressing…
The death knell for that area was sounded the first day a homesteader sunk a plow into it, and the 1920's and '30's were the result. You'd think people would learn, but they don't.
This water "problem" will self regulate. When the cost of pumping causes farming to be unprofitable, water usage will decline and continue to decline until the water table reaches a level where the benefit of pumping it outweighs the cost. Pretty simple. I don't think you can replenish the aquifer from the surface any faster than it is being replenished now by the many rivers and streams flowing through it and the rain that makes it down to the aquifer level. There's only so fast water will flow into it. The Great Lakes are drained primarily by the St Lawrence river and that river's water is hardly used and mostly flows into the Atlantic.
Human efforts to change nature rather than directly addressing the problem usually turn out to create as many problems as they solve.
“Under A White Sky” by E. Kolbert examines several instances.
It's really interesting to me that you mention water from the Gulf Coast. I am from Louisiana and have wondered for years now if we will reach a point where it becomes fiscally reasonable to pipe all of our freshwater to other parts of the country as they keep growing and drying out. We have more freshwater here than we know what to do with!
I have to chuckle to myself looking at those drought maps and thinking how I daily wish the seattle rain could just let up for a day or two so I could get something done outside
Wow. Climate changes are going on all over Earth, Wildfires are a certainty out here. Maybe Louisiana could send Montana lots of your spare H2O?
They may do that after the country has done gone Green and stopped using oil and natural gas. They'll convert the refineries into water distillation plants and ship out the pristine water in the RR tank cars that used to carry finished products and chemicals using EV locomotives. The water will be distributed by EV truck tankers to the households that now will have their own cistern for water storage and pay thru the nose for each 100 gallons purchased.
@@knuthamsun6106 Rain never stops me, wear a poncho or raincoat. You ain't made of sugar, so you won't melt!
@@billwilson3609 refineries that can be used to produce fresh water is about as feasible as making gold from lead. EV has to get its energy from other sources. It takes batteries that take energy to make.
I really love that you’re talking about shit that actually really matters. Love it! Keep it coming
Dad grew up in Great Bend, Kansas where the Arkansas River “bends” south. He always said that central and western Kansas has been fighting water wars since the 70’s because eastern Colorado takes the snowmelt from the Arkansas for their crops and livestock. Leaving nothing for Kansas. So we have to rely more heavily on the Oglala. Farmers got smart and stopped growing corn and soy and switched to sunflower and wheat. They handle the dry heat better.
You mentioned Colorado; Colorado also taps the headwaters, of The Colorado River, at Granby Reservoir, and pipes it, under The Continental Divide, into the Big Thompson River, to provide water to the Denver Area, and other towns, and farms, north of Denver. This has been around, several decades.
Supposedly there's laws that they have to let a certain percentage of the snow melt to continue on to the Great plains
Thank you for covering this topic! I have written many papers about this for school
I'm from Australia, you guys need to have a look at what we do along the east coast of Australia. We are experts at identifying where floods occur and building dams for flood protection and to increase the available water in the water grid (start with the Brisbane 1974 floods and the construction of Wivenhoe Dam as a water storage/flood mitigation device). Ground water isn't available everywhere here and many places on the east coast (within 100km~ of the coast) have too far to go down to access groundwater so surface dams are what we use. You guys in USA have a serious lack of dams like this. I've also heard that laws can make it very difficult for a farmer to create his own earthworks dam on site to capture rainfall from his property - another common practice in Australia.
With climate change you guys need to change what you do and how you manage water for agricultural uses. Eventually your groundwater saline % will begin to increase and then you'll be limited in how much groundwater you can use due to the salt, so your time is coming with the levels decreasing. Best start your transitionary plans before the aquifer is just a salty slurry just like early settlers did here on the west coast (huge areas ruined from salty ground water)
The US has plenty of dams that were constructed for flood control and reservoirs that served as a supply of water to cities and recharged the regional aquifers. Texas had a nasty prolonged drought during the 1950's so the US Army Corps of Engineers constructed around 65 dams in the state to create reservoirs with some having turbines to produce electricity.
I live in East Texas since it's the wettest part of the state. It's hilly so has plenty of large reservoirs due our rivers and creeks that have a constant flow of water in them. The DFW region has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 1970's where their politicians have been pestering the state government to flood more East Texas land to create reservoirs with their cities having the sole water rights to them. They've been stymied by the ACOE and state where the water has to be pumped uphill for long distances at an expense that would make it too costly for consumers to buy, plus needed ROW's for the pipelines that the state refused to subsidize. The few locations that the ACOE and state considered feasible were blocked by the landowners along the creeks and rivers that had the EPA designate them as protected bottomlands. That prevented them from being flooded for a new reservoir but still allowed the property owners to use them for farming, grazing, hunting and fishing.
You guys care too much about the rights of individual land holders and not enough for the society as a whole. You guys especially in Texas would rather millions of people in the cities lose everything before one individual land owner has "his rights taken away by big government" so lame. This isn't just with regards to dams, there are many examples where Texas would rather fuck over the masses to protect the rights of some individual. Look at guns FFS.
Yeah!!!
FREEDUMB!!!!FREEDUMB!!!!FREDUMB!!!!
@@aussiemanreacts There's reservoirs and aquifers in the DFW region. The cities there had no water conservation and reclamation programs so wanted to flood more of East Texas to be assured of having plenty of water to waste.
Most of the state has one or more aquifers under the ground. Those were first discovered in 1876 when people desperate for water began drilling wells. That's when people started discovering oil and natural gas deposits which pissed them off since they needed water and had no use for the other two.
Kyle you have the best taste in music, was listening to Flo & Eddie today myself!
The Great Lakes states and Ontario/Quebec will NEVER permit the economic and environmental catastrophe of diversion.
As they should
facts 💯
You would expect that in today's world, but when things get really bad I think you can guess what will happen.
@@buck4490 there's way easy solutions like indoor farming and easily regulating the water
They definitely should be building whatever they need to get the Mississippi-Missouri overflow going in the Aquifer's direction. That wouldn't be stealing anyone's water and would instead be a benefit.
First, the Aral Sea was larger than any of the great lakes and it still dried up after water was diverted for cotton fields.
Second, meat isn't the problem, beef cattle are the problem. The land and water resources required to make 5 hamburgers could make you 700 chicken sandwiches or 500 bacon sandwiches
Yeah beef is the absolute worst food environmentally speaking...
The Aral Sea had significantly less water volume than 4 out of 5 of the Great Lakes even before water was diverted or depleted in 1960. Superior alone has over 10 times the amount of water volume than the Aral Sea did in 1960 at its peak. So no. Also even if you mean just surface area Superior is and was bigger/ has and had a larger surface area than the Aral Sea did in 1960.
But the vast majority of the water cattle consume is green water, meaning water from the grass that was going to fall as precipitation anyways weather you grazed cattle there or not. Also, cows can be raised on land that is non-arable, meaning too rocky, steep, or arid to raise crops. So the idea that pastureland can be converted to crop land isn’t always accurate.
Reducing beef consumption, while ignoring all the problems associated with large scale pork and poultry farms, is not going to remediate any of the many agriculturally-driven environmental crises faced by humanity.
Great Lakes diversion is not the answer. They'll just drain those too. We gotta stop sprinkling our lawns, just to mow them more often, because we only change as a species when we're forced to. If Russians can drain the Aral Sea, we can drain the great Lakes. We have multiple golf courses in the desert. They use so much water it's unreal.
@@daquariussmith9772 Plus Aral is endoheric and the great lakes are not. Was waiting for someone to point this out, but top level outrage sells better
Always here to brighten our days, thank you King Kyle 🙌🏼
just did an undergrad research project on this, really opened my eyes to the growing water crisis with this aquifer and many others across the united states
Awesome geographic commentary from a systems thinker grounded in reality!
The 8 states bordering the Great Lakes and the Province of Canada having signed an agreement concerning water diversion as "Keep it Clean and Keep it Here". Suburbs of Milwaukee and Chicago have to be within the Great Lakes Watershed in order to get lake water. Many of the suburbs are within the Mississippi River watershed so they have to use ground water and not lake water. Every attempt to divert lake water to Montana for transporting coal slurry to California for agricultural needs has been defeated.
Imagine if we also said the same thing about heating oil. It's a precious resource that increases energy demand. People in the north should not get to use a resource they don't have in their states. Better bundle up next winter!
@@GeographyKing That's an incredibly stupid and childish argument.
One of your best videos yet.
The Great Lakes are not something you can divert water from. We have a treaty with Canada that prevents it called the Great Lakes Compact. Even Nestle bottling water from the lakes and selling it caused an international lawsuit.
as long as Canada has a tiny fraction of the US population and imports most of its food from the US, the treaty can be renegotiated
@@knuthamsun6106 It was made because the basin for the great lakes is very small and the outflow is also very small. Any diversion of the water would result in a rapid depletion of the lakes. So yes, the treaty can be renegotiated, but the reason for it is geographic.
Grain farmers with pivots use crazy amounts of water. Some water saturates into the soil and goes to the plants, but a lot of it evaporates and falls back as rain further east...
Rather than diverting from the great lakes, the missouri river seems more convenient. Plenty of spring snow melt each season to divert, it's closer to the plains, and it's already elevated (compared to the great lakes) so it doesn't require as much lifting to get it to high plains elevation.
Take that up, with the Missouri River Watershed States; but be warned; they may tar, and feather, you; and run you out of town, on a rail.
@@rodrudinger9902 Lol you're probably right. Necessity is a powerful motivator though. The situation isn't desperate enough yet.
I always wondered why desalination isn't more considered as an option for more coastal areas. That working IN CONJUNCTION with reducing and recycling can help stretch and better manage these finite resources. Thank you so much for shining a light on this. Those of us on the east coast (myself especially) don't hear too much about aquifer depletion. Thanks again.
Desalination is energy intensive, so the downside is a pretty significant one. On the bright side, membrane technology continues to progress, which will help get the energy needs down.
@@clsanchez77 Understood. It's good that desalination processes are getting more energy efficient, BUT the process as it exists now can be (somewhat) mitigated with alternative energy sources like wind or solar energy to try to offset some of the intensive energy needs of said desalination plants. This isn't a permanent solution by any means, but one that could be used to help decrease the amount of water taken from aquifers, rivers, and lakes. That's why I said it's the most important for recycling, reducing, and reusing processes to work in conjunction with one another at this point. Thanks for reminding me of the energy intensive nature of desalination though. I DO often forget that. Lol.
Eating less meat doesn't mean don't eat meat. There's nothing wrong with eating beef, but having it _every day_ is not sustainable.
Ok I will mix in pork, chicken, and wild game 😊
@@ryanehlis426 Your comment may be tongue-in-cheek but honestly, add fish/seafood to the mix and that's fine. Pork, chicken, and fish are a lot more efficient on land and resources. Hunt responsibly and I'd say that's a good activity.
This has been an honest concern of mine since learning about it over a decade ago.
We get mad because thats always the first idea, instead of you know, moving to where water is
This last winter was INSANE!! I didn't get my scoop shovel or 4-wheeler out ONCE to remove snow. My yard looks like death due from the lack of snow/moisture. Really strange and very concerning!!!
6:40 I think you mean "canine" teeth- incisors are actually for nipping vegetation (think rodents, horses). Part of mammalian success is due to their variety of teeth, which allow for adaptation to a variety of foods, per your point. Being a nocturnal omnivore was a good way to survive an asteroid strike.
Been a vegetarian for ~40 years & I have ZERO problems with people that want to eat meat, and as much of it as they like. Life is short - enjoy! Again - GK is right - humans are omnivores. I really appreciate how much science & common sense GK gets into these videos. The only thing I have to add is - GK - the world is a HUGE place. Have lived almost a decade out of the US - wandering ALL OVER this orb. Get out & see the world before you get too old to do anything other than a bus tour ;) Best to all!
Oops. Eating Animals is our problem! Check out agriculture trends, please? Check out why the rainforests were destroyed so feed for meat can be grown instead of leaving the Forests to fix our carbon levels?
@@Diana1000Smiles I understand all that. Am a scientist. I think it would be best if everyone did not eat meat. BUT, I am not going to tell/require my fellow humans on how they can live, especially since humans are omnivores. Dictatorial policy solutions never work and always make things worse. I think prices will rise for meat and more and more people will choose meat less and less ..... it is our only hope on this aspect of global climate change.
I agree with your missippi purposal, saves lives in more than 1 way. The great lakes not so much, we don't need to take crissis in 1 place and spread it to the great lakes. Do you inderstand the number of people that rely on that water for living. Let it flow where it's intended to flow. Small managed amout sure. 2 countries involved.
Thank you for sharing this very important information!
I don't think that water diversion is realistic on the scale that you are talking about. Change is inevitable, and we will eventually have no choice other than to make significant adaptations. I think that we will see hydroponics used to grow most produce (and the hydroponic farms will be located close to where the food will be consumed). We will likely also have to change where and how we grow a lot of crops. Also, meat will likely never go away, but it might get quite expensive (so people will eat less), or it will be grown in a laboratory (which might still be quite expensive).
exactly. All of these diversion schemes overlook the fact that water is quite heavy- 8.33 lbs for 1 gallon, so multiply that by the trillions of gallons that are implied by the scale of these proposed projects... the energy required is unimaginably huge. Gravity is not your friend here.
One thing he failed to say is most of the sand hills of Nebraska was ranch land and should of stayed ranch land, its ground that should of never been plowed. If there irrigation pivots don't run 24 hours a day 7 days a week in that sandy soil the crops will burn up. That's NOT sustainable farming practices short term or long term.
Went to college at West Texas A&M in Canyon, Tx. My geology professor was saying during certain times of the year the water wells runs dry between Canyon and Amarillo.
There will be water rationing in Dallas.
I stopped for a steak in Amarillo once, the waiter did not recommend the water so I had a beer🍺
@@hiitsrudd8567 You only stop in Amarillo to get laid. Then get the hell out.
@@rogersmith7396 Those pesky politicians in the DFW region have been pestering the state for decades to have more reservoirs built in East Texas just for their use. Landowners have thwarted their attempts by having the EPA designating their bottomland to be protected wetlands that the owners can still use for farming, grazing, growing / harvesting tress and hunting.
@@billwilson3609 Dallas just needs to stop. Its a disaster. No idea why anyone wants to live there.
I love your explanation of things you're just as clear on the ogallala aquifer as PBS was in 1976 on global warming everything they said in that program came true too thank you for the ideas you give us hope
I disagree with you. Why should a particular region be asked to provide water to another region because said region has a history of irresponsible use of water resources . After the region needing additional water resources does everything possible to reduce its consumption (which i see none of that sufficiently happening in any western state) then maybe we can talk but while irresponsible consumption continues , no water from other regions should be diverted.
I grew up in the sandhills of Western Nebraska and currently live on the Colorado River in Colorado. I know this has been debated for at least 50 years between Colorado and Nebraska ( as well as other states). I know great strides have been made with irrigation and water conservation for agriculture. The largest problem I believe its not the four legged animals but the 2 legged ones. The amount of people who have moved to the Western portion of the country over the last 50 years has exploded. I believe if some of the downstream problems are solved some of the water could be "held back" in the higher country. I have often thought of flood control diversion from the Missouri or Mississippi. Another idea might be infrastructure designs on housing or business to use grey water to assist in agriculture. To the smaller ideas like having a salt water pipeline to larger cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, LA for use in recreational facilities like swimming pools or fountains, etc. As more water is used and water becomes more expensive to acquire more solutions will have to be implemented to sustain the population. I liked your video and how it brought to light issues we are experiencing in the west [a place where 1" of rain means that there is 1" between the raindrops-lol].
I absolutely love your channel. You give excellent insight, and your logical about things. You also try to be fair and balanced.
I have known about the danger to the Ogalala Aquifer for decades. Well for fifty years. That is why the Northern Plaines Tribes fought so hard against the Keystone Pipeline.
what is missing in this video is an understanding of a 3rd way to help, through re-forestation, and rain water capture, which would massively decrease water lose to evaporation, prevent water lose as runoff, increase soil fertility, and these benefits can start happening almost immediately after there implemented, with increasing effect over time, and this could be done right now, without lose of cropland or pasture land. I am putting a plan together right now in eastern New Mexico to implement this process.
It's the plains. It wasn't forest
@@timmick6911 weather it used to be forest or not doesn't really matter, adding large areas of forest to this region would help to restore the aquifer.
@@timmick6911 also if you do some research, you will find that the planes region did have more forest on it, but much of that was depleted or gone by the late 1800s to early 1900s, interestingly was just a few decades before major dust storms became a severe problem across the region.
@@timmick6911 also, please do some research on the "Dust Bowl" as this should help your understanding of why forest would be beneficial.
@@theh2ohammer372 It's not suitable for forest and wasn't forest before it was settled. They were called sod busters for a reason. It is very silly to talk about reforestation in an area that wasn't forested
Thank you for highlighting an important and unknown issue
Good luck getting past the Great Lakes Compact (all abutting states and provinces). ⚠️
My husband grew up in a place where meat was very expensive, and only the rich could enjoy most meat types, with the middle class being able to afford chicken once a week or so, and the poor eating mostly vegetarian. As our US population grows and our resources don’t, we will eventually end up there too. Educate women worldwide, that has been shown to reduce how many kids they usually have. Population growth needs to stop (even though that’s bad for the economy, which depends on an ever-growing population, which eventually the planet will not be able to support). Something’s going to give, it’s just a matter of what and when.
One more opinion: there are some people living in desert areas that should stop trying to make their yards look like they’re living in England. That’s a useless waste of water. Kudos to those that have embraced desert themed landscaping, with pretty rocks and cacti, etc.
This aquifer is also the main reason I was so so opposed to that keystone XL pipeline.
Running a pipeline of toxic oil thru the water source for half the nations food supply sounds as dumb as it is.
What is really dumb is not being energy independent and if we are to buy oil it should be from Canada not the middle east.
@@opossumlvr1023 the pipeline had nothing to do with US energy independence tho. It was to funnel tar sands oil from canada to the gulf so it can be shipped to China. I don't think risking poisoning the water supply for 3 of our largest AG producing states is worth it, especially when it's not even oil the US was gonna use.
@@opossumlvr1023 - The simplest solution to energy independence is to make the cost to operate monster trucks and SUVs so prohibitive that they're no longer useful as daily drivers...
@@anthonyl1506 - And since the sands flowing through it would be super abrasive, leaks were almost guaranteed to happen...
@@anthonyl1506 If China buying oil that passes through the U.S. is a problem then lets put an export tax on it so the cost is so prohibitive they will buy from other nations. Mining the Alberta tar sands is great for the environment because as you said the oil is toxic so we should remove it from the soil, refine it and burn it so it turns into clean CO2 that plants can use in photosynthesis.
150 years ago the Ogallala was only 6 ft below the surface. Now it is a hundred to 400 ft down. For every gallon of alcohol added to gasoline lit takes 11 gallons of water to produce. Getting water from the great lakes would drain them in just a few years.
People need to start getting used to the idea that they can't just live wherever they please without altering their lifestyle. California and the rest of the southwest is essentially a desert or sub-desert. You can't expect millions of people seeking warmth and perpetual sunshine to not make sacrifices. Lush lawns, swimming pools and cheap water are some of the sacrifices you have to make. And as much as the continent loves their almond milk, guacamole and fresh fruit year-round, there are foods that take up vast quantities of water and should be considered a treat, not a limitless everyday product. The solution is to work within the strengths and drawbacks of a given environment, not use one environment to alter another.
So- no hurricane disaster relief for southerners? Laugh as the Midwest floods? Also, heating homes takes a lot of energy. People in the north should just bundle up and not waste precious energy. People need to start getting used to the idea that they can't just live wherever they please without altering their lifestyle.
@@GeographyKing The first two examples you give are natural disasters and are not equivalent to the permanent problem of dwindling water supplies in the southwest. Simply put, there is a limit to available water there, and the population has exceeded it. As for northerners staying warm, that is not an impending disaster but simply an environmental consideration that humans have been dealing with for tens of thousands of years.
I always thought it was aquifier, not aquifer. I learn everyday. Thanks, Kyle!
Sounds like the water from the Ogallala Aquifer is not being priced appropriately given that it is a finite and dwindling resource. An intelligent approach would be to allow no more water to be withdrawn than is replaced by new water from rainfall. Then auction the available water to the highest bidders. Will this push food prices higher? Yes, at least for food grown in that region. Could that result in more agriculture being shifted to wetter states? Sure. Could it result in less consumption of meat? Yes, and that's not necessarily a bad thing: we could all probably benefit from eating *less* meat without having to become outright vegetarians.
With regard to diverting water from the Great Lakes, in addition to the logistical issues and the opposition from the states bordering the lakes (including legal opposition as a result of the Great Lakes Compact), don't forget that Canada has a say in the matter as well! See: Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement
You make great points. I'm afraid of the unintended consequences of the increased cost of beef, for instance. Production will move to wetter regions, as you suggest, which will likely mean deforestation. Some of that pressure will be on the Amazon rainforest. We ought to consider that maybe depleting the Ogallala for now is the least bad alternative, while continually considering other ideas.
Approve? Yes, I approve! This is such a great channel. Thank you for an entertaining and expertly-covered topic. Water supply and droughts, for some reason, are a pet interest of mine. The current drought situation in the west/southwest is such an interesting (and dire) subject. Did you see that the record low water level in Lake Mead recently uncovered a decomposing barrel, with human remains inside? Possibly a Mob killing from the 80s. Fascinating.
Water diversion is prohibited by international law and that includes Lake Michigan
As a farmer, I can tell you that we need to change our agricultural practices. No till farming requires a fraction of the water to grow the same crops. Intensive rotational grazing of livestock will also help. Due to reduced land requirements.
Indoor vertical farming would alleviate a lot of strain on the Ogallala. These systems can be built in disused malls in urban areas, growing the produce at the destination market, rather than trucking it across several states. Cover the roofs in solar panels, and these indoor farms will drastically cut water, fossil fuels, and electricity use by the producer. Works anywhere from Fairbanks to Vegas. Saves the aquifer, gives the prairie back to the buffalo!
I am afraid most people do not understand the scale of modern agriculture. It takes millions of acres to sustain the food we eat.
The Netherlands does pretty well with that.
According to a presentation at the Witte Museum in San Antonio, some of the Ogallala Aquifer actually is a lake. They have videos of fish in the aquifer. It is a fascinating presentation.
Water diversion has been a disaster throughout history. Look at Lake Baikal in Russia. Diverting that has ruined much of Russia's agriculture and fisheries. What needs to happen is farmers need to move closer to water rather than water moving towards them. In the long run it will be much cheaper for the nation if the farmers move.
The sane bottom line is we need to consume less of everything.
I'm saving this for homeschool Geography and earth science. Thanks.
Deforestation and Lack of catchment are also major contributors.
Rainforests turn into Deserts because of deforestation.
Farming should be more sustainable, incorporating trees and biodiversity.
There are already more trees in the northern hemisphere than ever in recorded history. Also, trying to incorporate tress/forests/biodiverse projects requires more water...
The aquifers were brought up years back and the states involved were advised to not use this source. Obviously no one listened and now are crying the blues about yet another problem that could've been averted.
This video really missed the mark for me. We can do with less meat and leave the Great Lakes alone. At some point we need to start living sustainably before we decimate the entire planet.
Agriculture takes more water than livestock.
A lot of people don't eat enough meat.
You can definitely see where our irrigation district is in southern Nebraska, the surface water we provide for irrigation also helps recharge the ground water and that is clearly shown on your map.