What are the 10 largest metropolitain areas in the world, by
population,and in order, that are not located near any bodies of
water,ie.  ocean, river, lake or sea?

I can't think of ANY!

Almost by definition, a city will be near water of some sort.

Number one: Mexico City.

The answer depends on what you mean by "near" water and whether
nonnavigable rivers and "nearby" manmade lakes count.

Mexico City?

Xochimilco is known for its canals, which remain one of Mexico's
favourite destinations for fun and relaxation. Hundreds of colourful
trajineras (gondolas), each punted by a man with a pole, cruise the
canals with parties of merrymakers and tourists. You can board one at
one of the embarcaderos (boat landings) near the centre of Xochimilco.
On weekends, a fiesta atmosphere takes over and the waterways become
jam-packed with boats, people and tourist-targeting touts.

Stouffville ;)

Probonopublico,

You speak almost as if you?ve been to Xochimilco.  Or maybe you just
lifted that entire passage from a LonelyPlanet website.

Cities are located next to large bodies of water for one main reason:
transportation.  Water was the only way to ship freight way back when,
and remains the cheapest method today.  (There is a plethora of
secondary reasons ranging from drinking water, food supply, climate
considerations, waste disposal?etc.)
I looked at this question as find exceptions to the rule.  Find large
cities that don?t use bodies of water to ship freight.  Mexico City is
an exception, and being one of the largest cities in the world, would
rank number one.

Besides, I would hardly consider the dirty ponds of Xochimilco in the
same category as an ?ocean, river, lake or sea?.

-Bodan.

Hiya Bodan

As Markj has pointed out 'The answer depends on what you [the
questioner] mean by "near" water and whether non-navigable rivers and
"nearby" man-made lakes count'.

I am sure that you will agree that jbenach-ga [the questioner] must be
the arbiter of whether or not Mejico City qualifies.

As regards Steph53's nomination of Stouffville, it is perfectly true
that this ancient city is almost totally devoid of water but this is
only because it is permanently under snow up to and over the chimney
pots of their igloos.

Come Global Warming, Stouffville could become at least a Venice or
more likely a Gem of the Don Juans.

Those folks in Stouffville really know their stouff.

jbenach --

You can see from the posted comments that your question is too vague
to be definitively answered.  One way to fix it so that you will more
likely get an answer (assuming you are interested in the information)
is to ask for the top-ten cities that are "landlocked" in the sense of
having no navigable access to an ocean (either directly or by means of
a navigable river).

I'm pretty certain that Mexico City used to be an island in the middle
of a very large lake... not thats of very much relevance to
anything....

Metroploitan area, makes it difficult to find even a one million
population, that lacks a large lake or river that might be better
called a wet weather ditch such as the Salt River that runs though
Pheonix, Arizona. Some other possibilities are:  1 Las Vegus, Nevada 2
Reno, Nevada 3 Fairbanks, Alaska 4 Atlanta, Georgia, 5 Ankara, Turkey.
 The many small lakes near Orlando, Florida are typically very
shallow, scarsely deep enough for a row boat. The navitable lakes at
Disney World are more or less artificial. About 20 miles
East-North-East of downtown Orlando is a wide place in the St. Johns
River which is otherwise puny near Orlando.   Neil