Why dont we have water pipelines ?

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?

You think we could have figured that out by now, we can pipe oil from Alaska but not water from Washington to Cali? Is it really all about the" money" or "water rights" and only when water becomes as valuable as oil will they figure it out?

I know it would be a massive undertaking but so was the railroad and building highways. I know a pipeline has been proposed before and I remember not to long ago some rich guy from Texas was wanting to tow icebergs from Alaska or something.

I dont know how that would have worked but at least he was trying to solve a big problem.

It just seems like something we should have figured out by now,

Oh well thanks for reading..

Because Kali could drain the entirety of the Great Lakes and _Still_ be a desert.

My question is: As supposedly wealthy as Kali has been in the past, why didn't her citizens collectively demand desalination plants? Maybe ... because they don't all live in the desert and those that don't are rich, selfish, and looking for Federal Bailout monies?

They're called "canals" and/or "aqueducts". They're all over the place, and they've already done enough damage.

Flooding is a natural environmental process. If you siphon flood water away from where it's supposed to be (they call it "seasonal" flooding for a reason), you will end up irreparably damaging the local ecosystem.

How about this solution? Let's stop screwing with everything.

a reply to: Snarl

You would think as sonn as they were told they had to recycle sewage they would have demanded something.. That would make me move from anywhere lol.

originally posted by: NthOther
They're called "canals" and/or "aqueducts". They're all over the place, and they've already done enough damage.

Flooding is a natural environmental process. If you siphon flood water away from where it's supposed to be (they call it "seasonal" flooding for a reason), you will end up irreparably damaging the local ecosystem.

How about this solution? Let's stop screwing with everything.

Im not talkimg about normal seasonal flooding im talking about when the Missouri or the Mississippi is breaking levees.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

A major pipeline to and from the Desert Southwest. Utilize Solar Desalination, the salt left over is usable. Pipe it back.

Also, make glass, grow algae oil.

originally posted by: NthOther
They're called "canals" and/or "aqueducts". They're all over the place, and they've already done enough damage.



Flooding is a natural environmental process. If you siphon flood water away from where it's supposed to be (they call it "seasonal" flooding for a reason), you will end up irreparably damaging the local ecosystem.



How about this solution? Let's stop screwing with everything.

well you first

1) no internet it screws witht he planet
2) no processed food it screws with the food
3) no farming it screws with the ground
4) no car, motorbike, bicycle, unicycle or skateboards they screw with the land by needing roads sidewalks.
5) no boats, skidos surfboards, skimboards, it screws witht he water in oceans, lakes and rivers
6) no breathing it screws with the atmosphere
and I guess we could go on and on

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

Im not talkimg about normal seasonal flooding im talking about when the Missouri or the Mississippi is breaking levees.

That is normal. The levees shouldn't be there.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

Im not talkimg about normal seasonal flooding im talking about when the Missouri or the Mississippi is breaking levees.

That is normal. The levees shouldn't be there.

Hmmmmm. Ok then. I guess people shouldnt live in towns and cities by the river then huh?

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?

You think we could have figured that out by now, we can pipe oil from Alaska but not water from Washington to Cali? Is it really all about the" money" or "water rights" and only when water becomes as valuable as oil will they figure it out?

I know it would be a massive undertaking but so was the railroad and building highways. I know a pipeline has been proposed before and I remember not to long ago some rich guy from Texas was wanting to tow icebergs from Alaska or something.

I dont know how that would have worked but at least he was trying to solve a big problem.

It just seems like something we should have figured out by now,

Oh well thanks for reading..

Because it would require MASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE expendatures by the Federal and State governments. It would employ thousands of workers in decent paying jobs. Our leaders would rather pay exorbinant amounts to kills people in foreign lands while they force more and more citizens into proverty.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

Hmmmmm. Ok then. I guess people shouldnt live in towns and cities by the river then huh?

Not ones prone to regular, massive flooding.

Almost as stupid as building gigantic cities in the middle of the barren desert, no?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

It is very costly..
But with wave energy technology the future of pipelines is near. At least here in AU.

Environmently this has nothing to do with floods and they are good for establishing underwater ecosystems..

We have only desalination stations (that are awful for environment) currently and one damp. The rain in future years in AU is estimated to fall at 0.00mm pa, therefore no water for the city or farms. So pipelines are deffinately in cards.. And not just water.. If countries like Buthan can fully run on hydro energy so can everyone.

Pipelines are a good idea for Investmentors and stakeholders too.. I think everything mentioned above is just a matter of time.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Why bother with such cumbersome and expensive infrastructure?

Just seed the clouds and make it rain. Worked in Vietnam during the war. The opposite effect also works quite well all over the world!

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

Hmmmmm. Ok then. I guess people shouldnt live in towns and cities by the river then huh?

Not ones prone to regular, massive flooding.

Almost as stupid as building gigantic cities in the middle of the barren desert, no?

LOl, oh cmon ,Im pretty sure all rivers are prone to floodong, right?

originally posted by: Snarl
Because Kali could drain the entirety of the Great Lakes and _Still_ be a desert.

My question is: As supposedly wealthy as Kali has been in the past, why didn't her citizens collectively demand desalination plants? Maybe ... because they don't all live in the desert and those that don't are rich, selfish, and looking for Federal Bailout monies?

its is not just Cali before this recent flooding in Oklahoma they were suffering through a horrible drought, amd places like Washington state have more rain then they know what to do with.

When you have 40 million people in a state that's mostly desert what do you expect to happen?

Our country is suffering the consequences of our idiocy.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Hoover Dam project did help the US economy after the first great depression.
If you Google $1.33, $1.16 you will see there are similar economies of scale for solutions to the current situation.
The longer range pattern indicates there are lots of drought free years for the Southwest when they won't need any supplemental water sources.

Back in 2009 when the US economy was struggling back from recession it would have been a great time to build plants and take the Kali coastal communities off the natural supplies. Leave the less expensive water for agriculture so Kali could compete. That would have helped the inland communities too.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

LOl, oh cmon ,Im pretty sure all rivers are prone to floodong, right?

Yes. But the two rivers you mentioned are extremely prone.

I'll put it to you this way: if the Army Corps of Engineers has to come in and physically prevent the natural ebb and flow of the river to protect your town...

...your town is in the wrong place. You should move, because you shouldn't expect me to help you pay for rebuilding a town that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Just like, oh, New Orleans, for instance?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

not just USA. AU has massive floods an then massive drought. Government has to subsidize farmes this year $300 million for drought!!! Why not build a pipeline..

EDIT: the $300 million is only to the cow farmers nothing else included. So the cost of draught is way higher..

a reply to: NthOther

Fires, tornados, cyclones, Earthquakes, drought..

But you are correct wait I will edit

Ok so a town in AU
people paid (from whole Australia a percentage plus donations) . The whole town rebuild! It was actually estimated the price of the town had risen in a value, when this estimation came to place government told the people of the town they will have to repay to the Goverment the cost of rebuild! wft?! the money doesn't even go back to taxpayers or donating families!!!
I think it was like $400million.With the donations they build an extra park and library they had to shut down and the park they will have to turn into property for housing.. What a rip..