CSNbbs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_o...s/flooding

This idea has been around a long time, but why don't we build a pipeline system across the US?

We're a big country. We have floods in one part, and droughts in another.

So, we connect pipelines to major reservoirs and rivers across the country. Only use a skeleton structure, let the natural waterways do most of the work. And only turn them on when needed.

I figure a system probably wouldn't need more than 8 lines, and they wouldn't need to run both ways.

i cant imagine the scale something like that would need to be on. chicago has been working on a "deep tunnel" to reduce flooding for over 30 years, and it still isnt finished. i think its one of the largest civil engineering projects in history (109 miles of tunnel 300 feet underground, 33 feet in diameter, at a cost of over $4 billion)

niuhuskie84 Wrote:i cant imagine the scale something like that would need to be on. chicago has been working on a "deep tunnel" to reduce flooding for over 30 years, and it still isnt finished. i think its one of the largest civil engineering projects in history (at a cost of over $4 billion)

I confess I know nothing about this project, but it's odd since there are complaints that Lake Michigan's levels are dropping. If Chicago floods, shouldn't that water head toward Lake M?

Anyway, maybe I don't appreciate the scale needed here, but I'm not thinking of a giant concrete tunnel. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Alaska pipeline.

You don't have to relieve a flood instantly. If an area is starting to flood, people have hours and days to react. Levels tend to be high, and people know that rain or runoff is coming and will put levels higher.

So, if you have a pipeline to pump water actively out of a river or reservoir, have at it, before things get too out of hand. Pump the water to the Rockies or Sierra Nevadas: let AZ, NV and CA have the excess.

i see what you're saying with the concept, im just not sure how feasible it would be in reality.

the deep tunnel project is more involved with runoff, since the area is very prone to it (and then untreated water gets discharged into rivers and the lake b/c processing plants cant handle the capacity). this aims to essentially eliminate that.
its actually a pretty fascinating project. it wont be finished until around 2020, coming in at almost 50 years of construction

A friend just got back from Las Vegas, and he said they have a big water supply problem there. 5,000 people/month are pouring into Las Vegas, and they don't have the infrastructure to support a bigger city. Can you imagine a city without water?

Endzone2 Wrote:Can you imagine a city without water?

actually i can.

Endzone2 Wrote:A friend just got back from Las Vegas, and he said they have a big water supply problem there. 5,000 people/month are pouring into Las Vegas, and they don't have the infrastructure to support a bigger city. Can you imagine a city without water?

what do they expect to happen when they settle in the middle of a desert, and then build golf courses, midwestern front lawns, swimming pools, etc? im sorry, i just dont have a lot of sympathy. its not exactly the most sustainable place in the world to build a major city.

ya know i wouldn't mind living out in the desert sure it might be hella hot in the day and hella cold in the night but it would be cool to be out of the grid ya know.

Tulsaman Wrote:ya know i wouldn't mind living out in the desert sure it might be hella hot in the day and hella cold in the night but it would be cool to be out of the grid ya know.

i wouldnt exactly call las vegas off the grid ;-)

as far as the SW goes, i love new mexico. i went backpacking through the backcountry there for 2 weeks a couple years ago. absolutely beautiful (and if i ever were to "get off the grid", no question this would be the place).

niuhuskie84 Wrote:i wouldnt exactly call las vegas off the grid ;-)

you know what i meant. ;-)

Now that's an engineering project! Considering the top story on the news this morning consisted of flooding, wild fires and drought, on the surface it seems like a good idea to at least entertain.

The obvious hurdles are getting over the mountain ranges, and how long would it take to send the water from one side of the country to the other. Would it be practical to get water where it is needed when it is needed, or would it show up a week late? And how much would you be able to drain at any given time?

niu, are you trying to compete with Endzone2? You'll need more voyeuristic pictures of teenagers.

Hippies and their backpacking. lmfao

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Now that's an engineering project! Considering the top story on the news this morning consisted of flooding, wild fires and drought, on the surface it seems like a good idea to at least entertain.

The obvious hurdles are getting over the mountain ranges, and how long would it take to send the water from one side of the country to the other. Would it be practical to get water where it is needed when it is needed, or would it show up a week late? And how much would you be able to drain at any given time?

Generally, I don't think you'd have to go farther than half the country. And even then, you really only need to get to the continental divide(s).

I'd say something from the MS River to the source of the CO River, to N. Texas, and to some place east (Appalachains?).

Add to that something from western Wash St to the Sierra Nevadas.

That's a quick concept...1st iteration. It might be nice to have something up north too. I remember when the Red River flooeded Fargo; they knew it was coming for days (weeks?) but what can you do?

I wouldn't encourage taking water exclusively to relieve droughts, but mostly send water to alieviate flood conditions.

DrTorch Wrote:I wouldn't encourage taking water exclusively to relieve droughts, but mostly send water to alieviate flood conditions.

Maybe not droughts (too sporadic and localized), but perhaps the SW which is always in need of water. The fears over whether Lake Mead can sustain its levels.