Too much water - or not enough!

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:31:12 -0700, aspasia wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:18 -0500, lid wrote:

aspasia wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:28:58 -0500, lid wrote:

Russell Patterson wrote:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?


Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Fascinating glimpse into "reality" as perceived by someone buying into
the current Administration's line.



You are a standard blinded left-winger. What I say is correct.

Classic! The immediate resort to invective .

Aspasia

But he is correct!

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:08:44 -0400, Brian K
wrote:

On 6/12/2008 1:22 PM Russell Patterson plucked Senior Frog's Magic
Twanger and said:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?

This country has wasted a whole lot more money on much less deserving
projects!

I know a lot of people won't want the pipeline in their backyard, but
with sufficient planning and major buyouts of property at above market
prices, it could be done. If it is feasible to move enough water to
make a difference for either end of the pipeline, it sure is worth
looking at. The sediment could be filtered out before it is sent
downline so the water would be somewhat clean when it arrives in the
SW. It might even spawn new industry for making use of the sediment.

Your notion would eliminate places like the Painted Desert, and it's
ecosystem. Also, Death Valley might become "Green Valley". There would
be no more artists in the style of Georgia O'Keefe. She was inspired by
the arid clime of the South West. One of the great things about the USA
is it's diverse climates and ecosystems. It stimulates domestic tourism.
You must also be aware that the South and East also have droughts. Such
diversion would be like "robbing Peter to feed Paul". The only benefit I
see is for agribusiness which has already leveled and eliminate many of
our open spaces.

Did I say I wanted to flood the West? The object would be to take
some of the excess where it is causing a problem and move it to an
area that always seems to need more. Not so they can have their own
excess.


This newsgroup is intended for discussion of travel in the USA or
Canada. Your post doesn't really talk to either. I've responded only
to point out that such a plan, if ever implemented, would negatively
effect points of interest and travel in the USA and Canada.

Yeah, and nobody ever visits the Hoover Dam, because it is such a
blight on nature!

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:07:53 -0700, aspasia wrote:


Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Fascinating glimpse into "reality" as perceived by someone buying into
the current Administration's line.

Aspasia

It is not the current administration's line and that IS our problem.
The current administration is not conservative. Bush has been trying
so hard to appease the lefties that nobody likes him.

In article ,
Russell Patterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:31:12 -0700, aspasia wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:18 -0500, lid wrote:
aspasia wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:28:58 -0500, lid wrote:
Russell Patterson wrote:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?

Because it's easier and cheaper to take the water from the PNW: Oregon
and Washington.

Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Fascinating glimpse into "reality" as perceived by someone buying into
the current Administration's line.

You are a standard blinded left-winger. What I say is correct.

Classic! The immediate resort to invective .

But he is correct!

Only in part. Doug is speaking on gross generalizations of the left.
Some of the left ARE Luddites by their own admission. But it's not all
politics, and he over generalizes his comment on infrastructure. For
instance, he proposes breeders as new infrastructure, but they are still
experimental in this country (we will likely to have end up buying from
the French since we don't have many), independent of associated social
problems. Some propose yanking out all that infrastructure (e.g., Luddites).
Some want to improve and perfect the existing infrastructure, but also
he doesn't acknowledge the parts of the left who are for new infrastructure.
That's Doug's political agenda. He's blinded by his emotion.

--

On Jun 13, 4:16*am, Russell Patterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:08:44 -0400, Brian K





wrote:
On 6/12/2008 1:22 PM *Russell Patterson plucked Senior Frog's Magic
Twanger and said:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?

This country has wasted a whole lot more money on much less deserving
projects!

I know a lot of people won't want the pipeline in their backyard, but
with sufficient planning and major buyouts of property at above market
prices, it could be done. *If it is feasible to move enough water to
make a difference for either end of the pipeline, it sure is worth
looking at. *The sediment could be filtered out before it is sent
downline so the water would be somewhat clean when it arrives in the
SW. *It might even spawn new industry for making use of the sediment.

Your notion would eliminate places like the Painted Desert, and it's
ecosystem. Also, Death Valley might become "Green Valley". *There would
be no more artists in the style of Georgia O'Keefe. She was inspired by
the arid clime of the South West. One of the great things about the USA
is it's diverse climates and ecosystems. It stimulates domestic tourism.
You must also be aware that the South and East also have droughts. Such
diversion would be like "robbing Peter to feed Paul". The only benefit I
see is for agribusiness which has already leveled and eliminate many of
our open spaces.

Did I say I wanted to flood the West? *The object would be to take
some of the excess where it is causing a problem and move it to an
area that always seems to need more. *Not so they can have their own
excess.

there are plenty of problems with your theory. First of all it's the
moving part. How do you move water for long distances over high
mountains? but most importantly, the flood water you see is not
stored anywhere. In order to move it you have to collect it first.
And it's not like the midwest has exceesive water. They don't. and
if they can store water they'd want to save it for themselves.

With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest

The latter is pretty generically true. The former is not at all true
-- sometimes floods, sometimes quite the opposite. 'Twas just a few
years ago that its low level was causing trouble for barge traffic
(yet again).


why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?

Because that's a colossal amount of water (c'mon, compare the biggest
pipe you ever saw to even a small river, let alone the Mississippi
when draining 2/5 of the US in a wet year) and a long distance both
horizontally and vertically. Lake Powell sits the better part of a
mile above the Mississippi and the path from one to the other is a bit
lumpy. Ponder
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/us/big_us_color.gif


Cheers,
--Joe

lid wrote:
Russell Patterson wrote:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?



Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Hmmm! The energy bill just passed by Congress includes more nuclear
power and steamlined regs for all new power plants.

MV

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:48:38 -0700, aspasia wrote:

ANWR

? Could you quote just one measure that shows him "appeasing"
what YOU call "lefties" -- which in itself is a bankrupt,
emotion-laden, non-descriptive term.

Please...FACTS.. not opinion?

Aspasia

aspasia wrote in message ...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:08:03 -0400, Russell Patterson
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:31:12 -0700, aspasia wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:18 -0500, lid wrote:

aspasia wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:28:58 -0500, lid wrote:

Russell Patterson wrote:
With the almost perrenial flooding in the Mississipi basin, and the
ever present need for more water in the southwest, why hasn't anyone
proposed a pipeline system to move some of the excess water in the
Mississippi River to, say, Lake Powell?


Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Fascinating glimpse into "reality" as perceived by someone buying into
the current Administration's line.



You are a standard blinded left-winger. What I say is correct.

Classic! The immediate resort to invective .

Aspasia

But he is correct!

So say you. But you are only echoing OPINION, not fact.
Did you actually *read* OP's message? It consists
entirely of OPINION, not fact. It's so wild-eyed and
childish, that each statement is blown-up with emotion,
not FACT. Perception is different from FACT.
Both of you need a crash course in scientific, or critical thinking.

Aspasia

You ****ing, ignorant ****. What makes YOUR ***opinion*** any more important
than his?

aspasia wrote in message ...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:21:58 -0400, Russell Patterson
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:07:53 -0700, aspasia wrote:


Because of politics. The left wing is now dominant in the USA.

They refuse to actually fix problems. They absolutely hate
real technological solutions. They hate new infrastructure. They
hate paying for fixing old infrastructure. They want to fix all
"problems" by putting restrictions on ordinary people. This
is just another example. They won't drill for more oil. They
won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

Doug McDonald

Fascinating glimpse into "reality" as perceived by someone buying into
the current Administration's line.

Aspasia

It is not the current administration's line and that IS our problem.
The current administration is not conservative.

You are absolutely right. *I* am truly "conservative", but that has
vanished from the political scene as the level of invective and
abuse has risen. The word has lost its meaning, as has the other
term, "liberal". To your point: Yes, the Bushies are not
conservative -- they are wild-eyed radicals, such as
not been seen in this country for a long time. No Administration
has worked so assiduously to undermine our Constitution.

Bush has been trying
so hard to appease the lefties that nobody likes him.

? Could you quote just one measure that shows him "appeasing"
what YOU call "lefties" -- which in itself is a bankrupt,
emotion-laden, non-descriptive term.

Please...FACTS.. not opinion?

Aspasia

Your ****ing blubberings are barely even opinions.