There is some talk going on in our current times as to whether we should save the west coast of the United States or simply let it go to desert.  Most people would not say it in those exact terms, but that is really what the current discussion regarding the depleting Colorado River (and others) is all about.  Doing nothing means a “desert” for the west coast.  Doing something means, the west coast could continue providing the world with the things that it is currently providing us.  So, which do you choose?  A land of plenty?  Or A desert?

Well, one must first ask: what options he or she has if he or she chose to do something.  There are three: (1) desalination; (2) a pipeline; and (3) rain from the atmosphere.  The best thing to do is sit down with one’s calculator and figure out how much each alternative would cost to do without doing uncompensated harm.  The reason you want to do this is because this is the amount of money the “west coast” will have to pay for additional water resources.  The question, then becomes, does it make economic, political, and practical sense.

Personally, I could care less which approach is taken—if I was the west coast I would choose the most cost-effective alternative--however, I will lay claim to what I call the Buttigieg Pipeline as a specific alternative that I would consider.  What is the Buttigieg Pipeline?

It's a large water pipeline from the Great Lakes to the Colorado River.

Here is part of the reason.  

The water volume of the Great Lakes is 5,472 cubic miles.  The water volume of Lake Mead is a little under 8 cubic miles.

This entire concept was mentioned to me about twenty-years ago by an old Hoosier farmer friend of mine (Bobby Osborn) when we were talking about the effects of climate change.  Not only is the fresh water of the Great Lakes large, so is the water table under most of the land of the Midwestern states.  In the Midwest farmers don't even pay for irrigation water, they just pay for the drilling and the equipment used to irrigate.  The water is essentially free.

The project should be a pareto optimum with one group of farmers from the Midwest helping another group of farmers in California.  Payments could compensate for any "nature problems affected" and the Western farmers would have a guaranteed source of water supply.  In doing so you might even protect many of the lakes like Lake Mead and Lake Powell (both somewhat national treasures) that are disappearing in terms of yester year.

I could go on about the west coast’s water needs, but regardless as to how those needs are calculated, they pale in terms of the fresh water of the Great Lakes.  Here is some information worth understanding about the Great Lakes, other than the fact that they are shared by both the United States and Canada.

The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water.  The lakes contain about 84% of the surface freshwater of North America; if the water were evenly distributed over the entire continent's land area, it would reach a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters).  This is enough water to cover the 48 contiguous U.S. states to a uniform depth of 9.5 feet (2.9 m).  Although the lakes contain a large percentage of the world's fresh water, the Great Lakes supply only a small portion of U.S. drinking water on a national basis.

The total surface area of the lakes is approximately 94,250 square miles (244,100 km²)—nearly the same size as the United Kingdom, and larger than the U.S. states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined.  The Great Lakes coast measures approximately 10,500 miles (16,900 km);, but the length of a coastline is impossible to measure exactly and is not a well-defined measure.  Canada borders approximately 5,200 miles (8,400 km) of coastline, while the remaining 5,300 miles (8,500 km) are bordered by the United States.  Michigan has the longest shoreline of the United States, bordering roughly 3,288 miles (5,292 km) of lakes, followed by Wisconsin (820 miles (1,320 km)), New York (473 miles (761 km)), and Ohio (312 miles (502 km)).  Traversing the shoreline of all the lakes would cover a distance roughly equivalent to travelling half-way around the world at the equator.

The source of water levels in the lakes is tied to what was left by melting glaciers when the lakes took their present form.  Annually, only about 1% is "new" water originating from rivers, precipitation, and groundwater springs that drain into the lakes.  Historically, evaporation has been balanced by drainage, making the levels of the lakes relatively constant.

Intensive human population growth began in the region in the 20th century and continues today.  At least two human water use activities have been identified as having the potential to affect the lakes' levels: diversion (the transfer of water to other watersheds) and consumption (substantially done today by the use of lake water to power and cool electric generation plants, resulting in evaporation).  Fluctuation of the water levels in the lakes has been observed since records began in 1918.  The water level of Lake Michigan–Huron had remained fairly constant over the 20th century Recent lake levels include record low levels in 2013 in Lakes Superior, Erie, and Michigan-Huron, followed by record high levels in 2020 in the same lakes.  The water level in Lake Ontario has remained relatively constant in the same time period, hovering around the historical average level. 

The lake levels are affected primarily by changes in regional meteorology and climatology. The outflows from lakes Superior and Ontario are regulated, while the outflows of Michigan-Huron and Erie are not regulated at all. Ontario is the most tightly regulated, with its outflow controlled by the Moses-Saunders Power Dam, which explains its consistent historical lake levels.

A simple portrait of the major rivers and lakes in the United States might help one picture what a Buttigieg Pipeline might look like.  It’s not that hard to grasp—just draw a line from Lake Michigan to the Colorado River for one option.

The big questions are: (1) what would Canada say? and (2) what would the people of the Midwest say? and (3) what would the environmentalists say?  These are the people that must be placated to divert Great Lakes Water to the Western region.

The idea is not so uncommon as you might think.  I live on a North Carolina lake system that provides water for the Virginia shoreline and deals are cut to compensate North Carolina appropriately.  Drinking water delivered to 445,000 Virginia Beach citizens comes from the Lake Gaston Water Supply Pipeline.  It's a 76-mile-long pipeline leading from Lake Gaston, in Brunswick County, to Lake Prince, a reservoir located in Suffolk, but owned and operated by the City of Norfolk.

In line with globanomic theory something like the Buttigieg Pipeline is a one-year U.S. project.  If something is deemed important, then it is important to do it quickly while still maintaining a high degree of quality.  It simply requires a simple plan to be put together—something like the simple plan Tristan Yates sent me on the computer system I wanted him to build—then monitoring progress on a daily basis.  Personally, I don't know what the Buttigieg Pipeline would cost, but i don't think it should break the bank while making everyone in the process whole.  The United States has not built anything like this since the Hoover Dam, which ironically, from my understanding, started much of this.

Why is the Buttigieg Pipeline an example of globanomic analysis since it only pertains to the United States, itself?  I will give you several reasons.  First, if you look at the map of the United States above, you should respect the fact that you are looking down from above—from more of a global perspective, giving you a better view of where certain natural resources (e.g., water) are within a nation or other geographical area.  Second, water is a key component of the National Hierarchy of Needs within globanomics.  Third, it offers to show how a “pareto optimum” can be applied to a small, yet significant, project.  The west, or users of the transferred water, must bare all costs to assure that no harm is done without appropriate compensation.

As an aside, I might add the results of some globanomic analysis regarding the “per capita water supply” of each nation.  That analysis shows that the United States has nearly three-times the water/capita of Japan, France, and Italy; about four-time that of the United Kingdom; and nearly five-times that of China and Germany. 

Who would want to see those countries turn into deserts?