Why dont we have water pipelines ?

a reply to: NthOther

...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?

Thats just stupid.. There is no place on earth safe from mother nature.... period....

a reply to: Sparkymedic

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

a reply to: alienjuggalo

That is true.
But there are small places that taxpayers (some subsidies as well, not sure for what exactly) are paying for. Like this other little town the ground has extremely toxic compound and people are dying there from it, but they refuse to leave!
Eventually the cost of them living there has exceeded the cost of them moving away.

To NthOther:
New Orleans? The stats are showing population decreasing anyway.. Where will you move 400 thousand people where it is save to say no future natural disasters will happen there. Cost of moving away from water supply? I guess that is where pipelines can come in, who will pay for that..

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

Thats just stupid.. There is no place on earth safe from mother nature.... period....

You say that like we're supposed to be hiding from her, or controlling her, which is what is causing the problem to begin with.

She isn't out to get us. But we have to stop fighting her in order to see that. If all you want to do is continue to dominate and manipulate, you shouldn't be surprised when she rebukes us.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Why don't we have pipelines for water? Scale.

Take the Keystone XL:

Phase III has capacity to deliver up to 700,000 barrels per day (110,000 m^3/d) to the Texas refineries.

That's a lot of capacity.

One of the lower per capita users is Santa Cruz, California (at least, in California), where the average resident uses 47 gallons per day and has a population of 94,887 according to this article. That works out to 4,459,689 gallons a day or 16,881 m^3/d.

The total population of California is something like 38.8 million; Santa Cruz, CA represents less than 0.25% of that. If all residents consumed the efficient Santa Cruz level of 47 gallons/day, the Keystone XL could support 618,275 people (with water instead of oil). That is, however, a mere 1.5% of the state's population.

a reply to: MimiSia

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

Not unless you have the right kind of clouds to seed.

As to how it works in general. That would depend on who you ask. The cloud seeders who want your business say it works great. Meteorologists, not so much.

a reply to: NthOther

now you guys are saying the same thing.
You just said we have to learn to live with it, not?

a reply to: Phage

Hm now artificially messing with the weather that will be interesting..

a reply to: MimiSia
Cloud seeding has been going on for decades. The idea is to try to make a cloud rain that wouldn't have rained anyway. Pretty hard to tell for sure that it does that.

Here's just one company you can hire.
www.weathermodification.com...

originally posted by: alienjuggalo

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: [post=19382642]alienjuggalo[/post
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?

They should have a house that can float if it needs to.
Maybe some building standards could use a little modification.
I'm sure we have the technology to build floating houses. Tether them to the foundation and loosen the tethers when it floods.

a reply to: Greven

What does scale mean in this case.

General add..
When you run a pipeline to a gold mining town.. benefits exceed costs. Like can you imagine AU dessert turning into a green farming place.. With the growing population.. Until people know having kids and water is a privilege..

originally posted by: MimiSia

New Orleans? The stats are showing population decreasing anyway.. Where will you move 400 thousand people where it is save to say no future natural disasters will happen there. Cost of moving away from water supply? I guess that is where pipelines can come in, who will pay for that..

Not my problem. I didn't build my house below sea level, next to the sea and a gigantic river delta.

Because that would be a dumb thing to do. Mother Nature isn't out to get us but she certainly doesn't suffer fools either.

a reply to: NthOther

You say that like we're supposed to be hiding from her, or controlling her, which is what is causing the problem to begin with.

Wow Im pretty sure you are the one saying we should hide from her. Dont live by rivers prone to flooding is what you said lol.

Should the people in the midwest not live there because its prone to tornados? How about people on the west coast because its prone to EQS? I guess we shouldnt live on the east coast with all the hurricanes either huh? Or damm even within 200 mile of Yellowstone because its prone to a volcanic eruption?

The Roman aqueducts did exactly that, delivered fresh stream water to cities.

a reply to: NthOther

Because that would be a dumb thing to do. Mother Nature isn't out to get us but she certainly doesn't suffer fools either.

Trouble is, the places that are "safe" are few and far between. Tornadoes. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Volcanoes. It's always somethin'.

a reply to: NthOther

Just poison them all
I understand we in WA pay btw $100-300 leavy a year for flood on east coat that happen in 2010(?)

a reply to: cooperton

The Roman aqueducts did exactly that, delivered fresh stream water to cities.

Yes. And in California. Quite a bit more sophisticated than the Romans'.
mavensphotoblog.com...

The trouble is, the snow ain't there. No snow. No water for the aquaducts.

a reply to: Phage



oh mg.. Hire a company..
Thank you for that new info I love it!

a reply to: skunkape23

In antarctica, reaserchers have houses that can walk..

Just seen a USA show where you move the house with truck.. A lady wanted to replace her old shack house on farm. So she has finally found a house she likes (this is just coincidence to the topic, but from a flood area) cost her $30000, moving it $80000 putting it back together $60000. ?!? why not just build a new one?

originally posted by: CB328
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.

If you are refering to California, only 15 - 20 % is actual desert. That doesn't really qualify as 'mostly desert'. There are other states that have a higher percentage of desert.