Nationwide water distribution

BlueFox

I just read an article on CNN.com saying food prices are going up due to the current drought. For a few years now I have wondered why we do not build a nationwide water distribution system. If we can build pipelines to move oil and gas around then why not water? Plus it would be a great public works project.

HHStuart

Simple. The scale involved has cost and environmental impact concerns.
Much of the water in the plains states is pumped from the Oglala reservoir (from underground). It is basically fossil water that will not be replaced for 100's in not thousands of years. Irrigation water is already subsidized in many states. There have been plans for pumping from the great lakes but the states around the great lakes are already worried about plans for taking out a substantial amount just for bottled water. Irrigation needs would be an order of magnitude larger than that.

pitdogg2

BlueFox wrote: »

I just read an article on CNN.com saying food prices are going up due to the current drought. For a few years now I have wondered why we do not build a nationwide water distribution system. If we can build pipelines to move oil and gas around then why not water? Plus it would be a great public works project.

Just where are we moving this water from?

BlueFox

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Just where are we moving this water from?

The entire country, including Alaska. Even Canada if they buy-in. This can't be any more difficult than the Interstate Highway system. Can it? This is already done in CA, and maybe a few other states. Why not make it nationwide.

Polkersince85

Why not let a private company do it and come in on time and within budget.

littlewoodboats

There is a project underway in Nevada to try to help Lake Meade. The idea is to funnel mountain runoff.

When I was still with the Corps of Engineers there were several "what ifs" floating around

Drenis

We have lots of water here. Christ take some as homes are flooding every year cause they can't get the lake levels down enough.

mdaudioguy

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Why not let a private company do it and come in on time and within budget.

Yeah... how about a company like Comcast? Exxon? Apple? They're all about delivering us products and services as efficiently as possible and not extracting as much $$ as possible from us at all... I don't think I want a private company controlling one of my basic needs. Not saying I want the government doing it either... just saying.

tonyb

IMHO anyway, you have to perfect the process of turning ocean water into drinking water first. On a planet that is around 70% water, you'd think we'd have done this by now. Not only for our own use, but think of Africa, drinkable water and crop water would change that continent.

The oceans supply us with many natural resources with the most obvious being neglected.

Incidently, government already controls the water supply. Who do you think you get your water bill from ? Anyone on city water that is.

mrbigbluelight

Tonyb, when I was in the city, I got my water bill from the city and that was controlled by the munincipality. Used to work for them as a matter of fact.

I live in the county now, and get my bill from the Germans, who bought out American Water.

Much more expensive now.

BTW, if the big earthen dam reservoirs up there in Wyoming ever cut loose (did I mention earthen dams ?), then you'll have all the water you can stand. For a while. :loneranger:

amulford

Funny this should come up, as I was just talking about it the other day.

First, as it is right now is typical of our society. Irrigation methods are the easiest we can do, and are extremely wasteful. IF we did something, much more efficient methods must be used. And that would cost money for the farmers. ALOT of money. The technology is already present, just not used.

Desalination plants would have to be built on a huge scale. We only have to look at the Middle east to see how it's done. They aren't cheap to build OR to run, however, so here we go with the money thing again. In the upper Midwest we could tap the Great Lakes, but you start getting into the efficiency of moving and distribution over distance.

Yes we move oil and gas, but no where near the scope of what would have to be built. All of that is private enterprise, too. Are you prepared for the costs for water to be moved that way? Everything go up. Even with the increase it agricultural production, some way would be found to pass that off to you. I want to say let the government handle it, but we all know how that would end up.

I think it's a great idea, but there is no longer any altruism in our society. Only greed. THAT is the biggest obstacle...

tonyb

I dunno Antny, I'm not so against government handling building pipelines on such a large scale even though waste is likely. My thing is, government can do good things when it wants to, it just doesn't want to anymore. For instance, water.....every state has a need for it yet some have limited resources for it. Instead of wasting billions on failed solar companies, wouldn't it be more prudent to build water purification plants/distribution systems so farmers could more easily grow crops and drinking water be plentifull for everyone ? Would that also not stabilize crop prices if you took droughts out of the equation ? Would that not also eliminate contaminated ground water some cities use for drinking ? A health benefit, no ? It can be done, however the will to do it is lost.

Comes down to basic needs....instead of ideology.

oldmodman

The State water project here in California is a Wonder that is running out or resources.

We take water from the eastern side of the Sierras, the western side of the Sierras, the Colorado River, and whatever ground water there is.

Now we are in a ten year drought and the snow pack in the Sierras is down to nothing, the Colorado River is in a multi decade drought, and the ground water was never a very big source anyway.

One gigantic project that has been talked about for many years is diverting some of the Columbia River into a canal and pipeline system down to the California water project. But even with the diversion taking place right at the river's mouth the states that border the river are not terribly thrilled with the idea.

Even the old concept of harvesting icebergs has been brought up from time to time.

goofyGAguy

Maybe some of that $68 billion for the high speed rail to nowhere that your idiotic Governor just signed into law could be used for a water pipeline instead? Just a thought.

GlennDog

Drenis wrote: »

We have lots of water here. Christ take some as homes are flooding every year cause they can't get the lake levels down enough.

That might be 'cuase you're closer to the melting North Pole than the rest of us . . . .

G

BlueFox

goofyGAguy wrote: »

Maybe some of that $68 billion for the high speed rail to nowhere that your idiotic Governor just signed into law could be used for a water pipeline instead? Just a thought.

It is expensive, but this is another item we need on a national scale. However, it needs to be a mag-lev.

goofyGAguy

Your state is broke.

nooshinjohn

BlueFox wrote: »

It is expensive, but this is another item we need on a national scale. However, it needs to be a mag-lev.

We need this like another hole in the head... The projects projected cost comes in at nearly 750 BILLION. Who is going to ride HSR if it only covers less than 50 miles in the middle of absolutely nowhere? Further, the system is being built in Europe and NOT here. 68+ billion should be used to widen freeways here in L.A. or to help the homeless, not line the pockets of those that got this douchbag retread latter day flowerchild elected for a second failed stint as Gov. Some relics from the 60's should stay dead and buried. Seeing Moonbeam Brown is like watching a "day of the dead" reality tv show.


California needs to be split in half at least anyway. If it costs 500 Billion to separate the relatively conservative southern half from the nutjobs up north, that is money well spent IMHO.

amulford

tonyb wrote: »

I dunno Antny, I'm not so against government handling building pipelines on such a large scale even though waste is likely. My thing is, government can do good things when it wants to, it just doesn't want to anymore. For instance, water.....every state has a need for it yet some have limited resources for it. Instead of wasting billions on failed solar companies, wouldn't it be more prudent to build water purification plants/distribution systems so farmers could more easily grow crops and drinking water be plentifull for everyone ? Would that also not stabilize crop prices if you took droughts out of the equation ? Would that not also eliminate contaminated ground water some cities use for drinking ? A health benefit, no ? It can be done, however the will to do it is lost.

Comes down to basic needs....instead of ideology.

Dude I'm with you. I would love to see it happen and the government do something that for once would benefit the people. But they won't because of the greed inherent in todays political establishment. Somebody will see the potential of the market and line campaign chests until they gain control of it. Tell me I'm wrong.

Like I said the technologies are there, we have the mechanism to accomplish it with the Army Corp of Engineers. It would put a couple hundred thousand (or maybe a million with all of the ancillary manufacturing) people to work. All of the necessary industry infrastructure is here. It could be powered by renewable power sources, be it wind, solar or hydronic. It is entirely possible.

Yeah, Crop prices should stabilize, so one would think. Hell, production would benefit tremendously. The amount of meat we could produce with the abundance of feed would be astronomical. There'd be an impact of global proportions given the amount of wheat, soybean and corn we could export every year. We would have a huge impact on world hunger.

But todays business is caught up in "growth". It's no longer good enough to make a profit, those profits have to grow. And grow. And grow. Farming is becoming (and would even more with the increased potential) big corporate business, and as such would fall into the same trap. Even if the costs stabilize they will be compelled, for whatever reason they could find, to drive up prices.


If we could get out of that freackin' more more more mentality, this whole thing would be a piece of cake.

Drenis

GlennDog wrote: »

That might be 'cuase you're closer to the melting North Pole than the rest of us . . . .

G

Good guess but no. It's all the dam's put in place and not allowing enough water to flow therefore increasing lake levels.

I'm not THAT far north... does everyone think we live in Igloo's? :rolleyes:

mhardy6647

Water's not valuable enough ($ per ton) to be worth much infrastructural investment, I'd augur. Crude oil is 100 smackers a barrel, I don't think water's quite that pricey yet.

pitdogg2

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Water's not valuable enough ($ per ton) to be worth much infrastructural investment, I'd augur. Crude oil is 100 smackers a barrel, I don't think water's quite that pricey yet.

you had better rethink that bottled water is FAR MORE expensive than oil.....$$$ are there didn't you see any of the Jesse Ventura episodes on this

BlueFox

After a few more years of this type of drought, water will be very expensive.

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

The entire country, including Alaska. Even Canada if they buy-in. This can't be any more difficult than the Interstate Highway system. Can it?

It has only taken approximately 60-100 years and a Gazillion dollars to build the Interstate Highway System and rural roads, etc.

What do we do with the irrigation system the other 17 out of 20 years we aren't in a drought? Just let it sit idle after spending a gazillion dollars and say 30 years+ of construction?

It would be easier and far less costly to use water tankers to ship water to the places it's needed when it's needed. We don;t have drought conditions on this scale year after year.

H9

tonyb

Didn't take that long Brock. Your stretching bro. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step my friend. Tankers couldn't supply the need anyway.....and if they could, you'd have intra state laws to contend with much like gasoline. Don't forget the taxes that would be layed upon them too.

Point is, we have a water problem and we are surrounded basically on 3 sides with water. How about we figure out a way to get it into all the states, purified. You gonna tell me it can't be done ? Or it won't be done ?

heiney9

Ok, since Roosevelt was in office, he really pushed for Interstate travel (IIRC my high school history classes), I was also talking about the rural roads as well, because just getting water to the middle of the state isn't going to help those away from the "water highway"

rebuy

If you people don't think the water situation is bad enough, then I suggest you google, "T Boone Pickens and water".
You'll see how he's gonna sell water right of the the Ogallala Aquifer.

amulford

^^^^See what I mean? It's already started

tonyb

heiney9 wrote: »

Ok, since Roosevelt was in office, he really pushed for Interstate travel (IIRC my high school history classes), I was also talking about the rural roads as well, because just getting water to the middle of the state isn't going to help those away from the "water highway"

Actually I think it was Eisenhower who built the interstate highway system, regardless, it can be done. Wouldn't you say clean drinking water, and crop irragation is far more important than solar factories or bullet trains to nowhere ?

These are the kind of undertakings that bring a nation together, jobs would come, the economic wheels would turn, and people would be better off in the long run. We just need to re establish priorities in this country.

Conradicles

Sorry guys and gals but this thread is plain silly. Really?

tonyb

Water is silly ? Turn yours off for a few days and see how long you'll last before your crying for it.