Too much water - or not enough!

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.

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.

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.

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

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

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?

I suppose it's possible in theory, but the cost would be prohibitive.

Long pipelines cost a fortune, and in this case they'd have to
purchase huge amounts of property, plus they'd be pumping uphill (Lake
Mead and much of the west is higher than the Mississippi).


Your notion would eliminate places like the Painted Desert, and it's
ecosystem. Also, Death Valley might become "Green Valley"

Come on, he wasn't proposing that.

James

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.

Doug McDonald

On Jun 12, 10:22*am, 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?

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.


First of all it would be very very expensive to build and maintian
such a pipeline, with the resulting water also very very expensive.

And people in the midwest took a look at the Owens Valley and decided
they don't want to go down the same path.

In message lid wrote:

won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

True enough, and it's a pity.

In their defense, in the last 6-8 years of right wing power, how many
nuclear reactors were built, breeder or otherwise?

In article , 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

Right, borrowing and spending money we don't have works so well for the
Republicans.

In article ,
DevilsPGD wrote:

In message lid wrote:

won't get more fixed-source energy by supporting the true and obvious
long term solution: nuclear power with breeders. Etc.

True enough, and it's a pity.

In their defense, in the last 6-8 years of right wing power, how many
nuclear reactors were built, breeder or otherwise?

Exactly, and what problems did the Republicans solve when they had
control over the House, Senate, and the White House? None. They just ran
up trillions in debt that our children and their children will have to
pay. Government grew larger and more intrusive, and it got a lot more
expensive, and for all the money the Republicans spent, they couldn't
even see a huge hurricane approaching.

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article , 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

Right, borrowing and spending money we don't have works so well for the
Republicans.

Works well for the Democrats also. Both major parties suck, and you just
have look at the sucky candidates we have to choose from in November.