•••
Some folks think diverting Mississippi River water to the parched Southwest is a brilliant plan ("Mississippi River eyed again as water solution for West," Feb. 3). Never mind that it would take decades and cost billions. It also ignores a simpler, faster and cheaper alternative:
Instead of moving water from the Midwest to the Southwest, why don't we just encourage Southwesterners to move to the Midwest?
Bob Lewis, Minneapolis
•••
The Feb. 3 article about pumping unwanted flood water to parched portions of the West has some merit. But why limit the discussion to just the Mississippi River? Pumping from tributaries upstream could help abate flooding in towns and fields along the banks (think the Red River of the North) while also easing flooding downstream.
With thousands of oil pipelines crisscrossing the country and the demand for oil in decline, I wonder if it would be possible to recommission some of the redundant feeder lines to pump water in the reverse direction? If so, it would be a win-win for both regions, help the oil companies leverage their infrastructure for green purposes, and possibly shorten the project timeline from the projected 30 years. As an added bonus, it would be much easier to clean up a spill if one leaked.