Didn’t folks state previously in this forum earlier that fresh water by rail to help alleviate drought would never be cost feasible?
https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/jacobs-well.html
Niche location with relatively limited water requirements. Not stated is what that costs and ‘selling price’ are. It will not be cheap.
BNSF only moves the cars. All the costs are paid by donations.
Target market is 250 families each of which uses an average 8 gallons per day. His longer term goal is “a million gallons per month” – he now has 28 suitable tank cars so you can estimate trips from that.
I would think they could find water closer than Mississippi.
A closer source would allow a quicker turnaround. They might need more storage if they don’t have the ability to store five cars worth at a time.
ATSF and SP both hauled water to out-of-the-way stations that had no local water source.
Not just in Mississippi but in the far southeast corner, almost on the Gulf. Then the water is routed through Amory (where the big Frisco locomotive is displayed) and presumably via Memphis…
Supposedly he has arranged ‘multiple’ pickup sites for cheap municipal water.
We don’t really know the costs. This entire operation is being funded by donations.
Glad the problem is being addressed. Having to rely on donations to make it work is tough.
Will regulations allow this plan to go forward?
This plan already has gone forward, per the linked story.
There’s at least one significant source for water in New Mexico with the necessary trackwork already in place to begin loading tank cars. They’re in contact with BNSF and the Navajo Nation as we speak.
By “go forward,” I mean going into operation and being allowed to continue operation without being stopped by regulations or legal action. How often has this type of water selling been done in the past century?
Hauling water by truck has been going on around here for years. I know of no regulations - I know we never had to have any sort of permit when hauling for the fire department. Filled a lot of cisterns.
When I talk about transporting and selling water, I am not referring to any incidental quantity of water that happens to move in a vehicle. I am referring to large scale operations such as the one that is the subject of this thread. I can imagine there would be opposition to such a plan for various reasons, so I wonder if such opposition would arise over the plan detailed in this thread. One key indicator would be the incidence of such interstate water selling that has occurred, or is occurring now.
The article characterizes this water shipping plan as a done deal, so when will this water start to move?
According to the article, it already is.
Generally speaking, water is not a regulated substance. If entity A is willing to sell water to entity B, there’s nothing to stop them. I’m not sure I know why anyone would object. If anything, I would expect competition to supply the water. Given the circumstances, there would be public relations value in doing so.
We have water haulers in this area who regularly buy water from municipalities. Most of the time, it’s to fill pools. Some may go for consumption as is the case with the subject of the story.
Surface water rights regulations seem to be more of a dry west thing, and even then ground water isn’t regulated. Back in the wet east water is usually managed locally by water districts. The Great Lake states water compact seems like one of the few prohibitions against water diversion out of that basin. But I think you are right that regulation is in the future.
If the city of Atlanta cannot stop its water lines breaking since Friday it may need water trains. Crescent has probably not been able to get potable water with all the boil advisories including the station area.
I seem to recall that we discussed this on the forum a couple years ago. It did not sound so easy at that time.
I don’t see why anybody would oppose receiving imported water. But I don’t see why any water user would favor exporting it unless the export sales generated revenue to reduce the exporter’s own cost of their water supply. I would not support our water supplier selling our supply to other states just to raise more revenue to expand our water authority empire.
The above link concerns private wells. Water authorities are often public agencies. Public agencies generally try to keep the water rates low, as citizens generally howel when they propose raising rates. A water authority selling to export at higher rates may be just trying to put off raising their own ratepayers water bills.
The following from the link I posted above and other embedded link(s) make all of the points I have suggested about possible opposition to this new plan for New Mexico imported water. So I don’t understand your point about this only being about private wells and not pertinent to the plan for New Mexico.
From the link:
“Last week came the surprising news that a company in Lakeville, Minn., wants to pump water from below the ground in Dakota County and transport it by rail to the western United States, where water is scarce."
Environmental groups quickly opposed the idea. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said the plan likely won’t meet state law.”
With this Minnesota proposal, it sounds identical to what is being proposed for NM, and also demonstrates plenty of public opposition, and regulations.
If the water authority here were to sell to other states, and bring in revenue to lower our ra
Ye gods, does no one here understand practical economics?
His ‘million gallons a month’ is 50 tank-car moves. I doubt that will affect aquifer levels or incur strict regulation of the most precious fluid.
Ye gods, does no one here understand practical economics?
His ‘million gallons a month’ is 50 tank-car moves. I doubt that will affect aquifer levels or incur strict regulation of the most precious fluid.