I can see some advantages in that this would really increase crop yields in so much of North America. But, the capital cost and ongoing energy costs to pump water over the mountain ranges would seem to do against some aspects.
Considering both the energy and the water supply picture, its amazing that the areas situated in the most vulnerable locations of the U.S.A. have seen the most poulation growth - namely California, Nevada, Texas and Florida. Meanwhile the locations most favored for water access, like upstate New York, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin have been stagnant. Is it likely these Gtreat Lakes states will see a population resurgence in the years to come?
I think the NAWAPA idea has some real merit for conservation. Right now. so much fresh water is wasted into Hudson's Bay and the Arctic cocean, and this idea would make much better use of that fresh water. But, I would draw the line at feeding even more water, with the energy input required, into Calfornia for instance. And, most of Nevada right now is just an articifial oasis, created by cheap water and power, and both of those will be getting scarce.
See NAWAPA - Schiller Institute
