[superkuh]

My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition. It's questionable if it can be done in a way that's not harmful to the Mississippi watershed and ogallala aquifer. But you're right, the human good it could do would justify much.

The advocacy group NRDC has a much better explanation of the general concept and specific Mississippi/Ogallala proposal: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-rep...

Two things become clear. The mississippi/ogallala project would have to be an aqueduct project and not a pipeline if it wants to move a helpful amount of water to justify itself and it would require an exorbitant amount of energy to pump water from, say, Omaha to Denver. It doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening before many smaller projects are attempted first local to the southwest.

[richk449]

> My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition

It is interesting that a project like this runs into visceral opposition from two different sides. Those on the left may object that we shouldn't be messing with the natural world in ways that will have consequences we won't understand. Those on the right may object that we shouldn't be attempting large expensive government projects that will intrude on individual liberty.

Both objections have some validity. But neither are cost/benefit analyses, which is a much better way to evaluate whether we should be doing something than asking whether it perfectly aligns with my principles.