Major pipeline might aid arid West

ST. LOUIS — Even as drought-stricken Midwestern states squabble over diminishing water supplies in the region, a new federal-state study raises the idea of constructing a 670-mile pipeline to divert water from one of the Mississippi's major tributaries to help seven arid states in the West.

For two years, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have considered ways to provide more water for the growing populations in the West. A plan scheduled for release later this month will include a proposal for a pipeline to ship water west from the Missouri River, along with a number of less ambitious options.

The pipeline proposal, which would cost about $11.2 billion and take 30 years to complete, is expected to intensify the debate over how to ease one growing region's shortages without harming the interests of others.

Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Dan DuBray said the pipeline idea is in the very early stages, a long way from reality.

"The idea of constructing conveyances to move water resources between other basins and the Colorado has been raised before and was once again submitted as an idea in this process," DuBray said. "Any proposal will be evaluated for feasibility, broad support and realistic funding potential before further consideration would be given.

Any plan for diverting significant amounts of water from the Missouri would encounter opposition from some in the Midwest, given the drought and competition for water resources.

The Missouri River flows from North Dakota to Missouri, and provides drinking water, recreation, hydropower and irrigation in six states. The drought has left river levels so low that shipping companies are warning that barge traffic downstream on the Mississippi could come to a standstill by the end of the year. States on the Mississippi are calling for the release of more Missouri River water into the Mississippi, but northern states are objecting.

Some conservation organizations argue that future water demand in the West should be met with conservation and policies that increase water reuse. Those measures are the focus of the more modest options in the plan. Constructing a major pipeline is "absurd," said Jason Bane of the Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates.

But some western interests are pressing for more aggressive steps.

Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said the nation must keep an open mind to a variety of ideas for meeting water needs, including pipelines that could provide a dual benefit: removing excess water in flood-prone areas like the Midwest during high water periods, and transporting it to areas like the West that have an urgent need for water.

"Maybe it's time for us to look at marrying the concepts of flood control and drought protection," Mulroy said. "We've seen in the middle portion of the country some devastating flooding going on. Should we be talking about preserving those floodwaters somehow and not putting New Orleans at risk and some of the other communities at risk year after year?"

The Missouri River pipeline plan notes that water wouldn't be diverted during droughts. But Bane said that if both the West and Midwest are in drought, water battles would almost certainly ensue.

The pipeline proposal calls for a large treatment plant near Leavenworth, Kan. The pipeline would run roughly adjacent to Interstate 70, with the flow moved in part by a series of high-capacity pumping stations. It would supply roughly 1.2 million households in the western states.