Why dont we have water pipelines ?

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
Sry mods if this is in the wrong forum

This is a question I have asked myself 100 times. How can we be suffering major flooding in some parts of the country but have an epic drought in other parts of the country?

It's natural--it's caused by wind patterns and humidity levels and atmospheric pressure differences and everything else that combines to create once-in-a-howevermany-years flood event. I lived downriver of Nashville (in Clarksville) when the Cumberland flooded a lot of Nashville, TN, in 2010. They called it a 100-year flood event, implying that there is a natural cycle to these things.

The Mojave Desert is a desert because of the same reasons that Alabama is full of swamps--it has a natural climate. We shouldn't go messing with things just because a 100-year event might happen and desert areas in California are being over-populated by choice because people are stupid and move to a desert and then wonder why they have no water.

How does one harness a flood and stick it into a pipe?

And which states governor would commit political suicide by sending his states water to California?


And the best question is why should the rest of us bail out a state that has done this to themselves?



Perhaps it's time to either make drastic lifestyle changes in California or move.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MimiSia

Yeah. Well. There's that little matter of irrigation too.

And feeding the country

I have an answer to that and one that I got first hand.

Several years ago, while living in California, I had that exact same idea. So I called up my rep and senator, wanting them to put this into the works. What I got told was shocking, that they could not justify the cost of such. What argument could I make for such, and I pointed out that it would well cover the cost, if they could collect the flood waters and pump it, clean it and ship it, thus preventing one diseaster, costing billions in damages and aiding regions that are needing and wanting water.

a reply to: NthOther

The way civilizations prosper is by settling near a river. Food, transport, energy etc etc. Egyptians would not have become a super power if it weren't for the Nike. Is London stupid for settling near the river Thames and setting up flood barriers to protect the people?

a reply to: Legman
It's not tribalism. You are the same country believe it or not. Not the people's fault for the government's lack of investment. You would not have the same stance if tour family was in a flood prone area

a reply to: Legman

And the best question is why should the rest of us bail out a state that has done this to themselves?

Because we are all "Americans" before we are Californians, or Texans or New Yorkers.. WHo else is going to help?

Catching floodwaters, complete with raw sewage, dead animals and God knows what is the completely wrong idea. There's another way that's been talked about and talked about and *sigh* endlessly talked about.

NAWAPA - the North American Water and Power Alliance



Some quick links for those not ready for a long video:

archive.larouchepac.com...
www.applet-magic.com...

It's a pretty audacious plan and would cost a shipload of cash, but the potential is enormous.

a reply to: masqua
Rather than raping Western Canada...how about trying a little conservation first?

Call me when Cali has mandated drip irrigation systems...oh wait, they wouldn't have much of a water 'crisis' if they did that, so there would be no point in calling.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: Legman

And the best question is why should the rest of us bail out a state that has done this to themselves?

Who else is going to help a state that have the worlds

Because we are all "Americans" before we are Californians, or Texans or New Yorkers.. WHo else is going to help?

Who else is going to help the state with the WORLDS eight largest economy ? Hmm I dunno .... Who could help the worlds eight largest economy???? It's a mystery.... Surely not yourselves???


Well said by a person that believes in a wale fare state. Someone else always has to pick you up and give you something.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: masqua
Rather than raping Western Canada...how about trying a little conservation first?

Call me when Cali has mandated drip irrigation systems...oh wait, they wouldn't have much of a water 'crisis' if they did that, so there would be no point in calling.

You obviously don't get it Peck. These people don't want to change their lifestyles or help themselves. They demand a handout at the expense of others money and resources.



Get with the program bra

originally posted by: Legman
They demand a handout at the expense of others money and resources.

If they mandate that agriculture MUST use the most efficient water delivery systems available, I have no issue with my tax dollars (if they were in Canada, and, yes, I think we should be doing that here as well) subsidizing the venture.

It is food that will end up in my mouth, I don't mind helping it get there.

I do mind a massive geo-engineering projects when it is going to do nothing more than delay the inevitable. Without changes to our ways, it would be nothing more long term pain for short term gain, and I, for one, am getting a little tired of that tune.

a reply to: peck420

I do like your way of thinking and must also concede many, many issues I have with a mega-project the size and scope of NAWAPA. The impact, not only to migrating wildlife and the flooding of huge parts of the Canadian Rockies, but also our ability to move people and products across those immense reservoirs that are planned. Roads, railways, towns and cities will have to relocate and that is something which the NAWAPA engineers don't want to discuss (unsurprisingly).

Chances are, we'd be able to have a much more amenable and cost effective method of water conservation than that monstrous proposed idea which has been on the table for 50 years. Perhaps dire need will provide inventive minds...

However, the NAWAPA plan is once again being considered, due, in large part, to the ongoing water crisis in the midwestern US.

On a current serious note..
Just watching news.. They are reporting flood emergency in Houston and coming up dangerous weather..
I hope you and your families are safe..

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It would well cover the cost, if they could collect the flood waters and pump it, clean it and ship it, thus preventing one diseaster, costing billions in damages and aiding regions that are needing and wanting water.

I think this is actually the smartest idea I read in a while

originally posted by: rossacus

The way civilizations prosper is by settling near a river.

"Near it" and "on it" are not the same thing.

You're also assuming "prospering civilizations" and "superpowers" are good things (which is questionable at best), but that debate is for another thread.

Is London stupid for settling near the river Thames and setting up flood barriers to protect the people?

Yes.

a reply to: Snarl

Didn't Japan build giant man-made aquafers to capture and store rain water? Why did'nt Cali do the same?

I picture your economy like this..

The federal government has main revenue from your income taxes and then makes a budget and spends the cash on welfare, medical, military, infrastructure for the country as a whole.. State and local government are responsible for their own issues however the big interrelated stuff still is made, paid, decided by fed... From what I read California has a lot of jobs that are well paid therefore overall they pay larger proportion of income taxes. Next your economy has a capitalistic philosophy you as a nation prefer private sectors.. The only way any private sector gets revenue is by people purchasing goods and services.. Food, schools, hospitals are "sponsored" by federal government - that gets their revenue mainly from income tax - from people who lets say work in the Silicon Valley, ports and the airports, tourist areas, farms.. Do you have a choice to decide what is your tax money spend on?

Then this "desert" issue.. Abu Dhabi (887 billion capital revenue) or Dubai comes to my mind.. I honestly rather live in semi desert area and sacrifice a bath or having a green lawn when there are shortages of water then live in an area with no jobs, poverty, floods, ice, volcanos, tsunamis ,monsoons (like after the desert thing are these people next?)

I like this thread for various reasons.. I have no personal involvement. But the replies here are playing out like a virtual scenario of what it would really look like if there was no one in charge. Power to people(?) is suddenly kind of scary.

I would like to add an opinion.. Statistically what ever we each choose to do, choosing to collaborate with each other is not just a win-win but it means more "apple pie" for all.. Reality of this collaboration happening, however seems to be improbable and it is like these issues will carry on, onto the children and grandchildren, in reality someone will end up paying for these deficits created from these type of disagreements.. if it is higher future taxes, inflation, interest rates so on and so on..

I just found this

May 26, 2015 - The Department of Water Resources (DWR) today welcomed NOAA’s recognition of the need to support DWR and other agencies with improved seasonal predictions of precipitation to facilitate water management during California’s four-year drought. Governor Brown’s January 2014 proclamation of a drought emergency specifically directed DWR to improve seasonal climate forecasting and drought prediction. The recently-completed NOAA California Drought Service Assessment contains more than three dozen findings and recommendations that NOAA said may lead to improved and more tailored data products and tools, such as weather forecasts and climate models.

ca.gov...

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Sparkymedic

Wow cloud seeding.. Freaking awesome, does it work?

Pretty much what Phage said.

From what I understand though, one of the main reasons that this isn't used to "help" the climate in our favor is because it is rather unpredictable. No one really wants to take on the risk of trying to subdue a hurricane or make it rain. Plus, if they do make a successful attempt, what about all that GDP that will be lost due to not having to rebuild?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

The answer to your question is likely the answer to most questions of this nature. MONEY! More specifically, is there money to be made? We live in a society filled with greed. Our Government has us so far in debt that there is no way for it to pay for a project this large. Our smaller Governments (except for those in need) have no real incentive in pipping water to drought stricken areas. They make their fortunes charging us each time we flush the toilet. As for a private endevour, the rich and powerful do not see enough profit in piping water. We pipe oil from Alaska because the profit is tremendous. Desalinating is very expensive. Until the technology is cheaper or the price of water goes up the desert will remain dry.