Hi HEF Members, This is an important topic for me and should be for everyone. I wanted to get the word out but wasn't sure what forum to start the thread. Since this is General Industry Questions and the topic clearly pertains to our industry as a whole and most definitely asks a big question I hope I have chosen the proper Forum. If not, I rest confident that our esteemed Moderators will direct this thread to the correct location. I have always pondered the question, why do we not have a National Pipeline System for Water? We have a national grid for electricity, have one's for natural gas and oil and communications too. We even have an Interstate Highway System, originally intended to move Troops and military equipment subsequent to WWII and during the Cold War as well and although lacking a Railroad System. Yet, with all our technology we have no way of moving excess water say in the Southeast to areas suffering drought conditions such as but not limited to Texas. Geographically speaking most Northern states are at a higher elevation than those in the South therefore much of the system could rely on gravity as in sanitary sewer systems. Where mountains and so forth present an obstacle we have vastly improved Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM's) that could mitigate such an obstacle quickly and cost effectively. This Country needs jobs, what better way than to allocate funds for such a National Project. Think of all the employees, contractors and companies that would either have to be created or mobilized for such a cause. Not to mention the ecological side, water could be moved to areas where water is scarce and almost effortlessly. American's were once known worldwide for our drive and ability to think outside the box and create solutions for problems, now we seem more prone to be part of the problem forsaking the solution altogether. I do not wish for this thread to turn political in the sense of argument but to inspire those who care -when all of us actually should- to make noise, call your representatives in D.C. and in your home state and ask why? Why do we not have such a system in place? We think OIL is the key to survival when in reality water IS the key, we can surely survive without oil and might be better off in the long run but water, water is what we're made of and without no amount of oil will matter when there's no water to drive to. Think for a second, if Farmers have no water for the crops what happens? The price of food goes up AND so does the price of gas because we need to produce ethanol to blend with fuel. Not long ago Atlanta, arguably the most important metropolis in the South was threatened with a massive water shortage, can you imagine a city the size of Atlanta without water? Water shortages are becoming more prevalent and that should frighten everyone reading this thread but there is a viable solution. Odd it is that the Romans built aqueducts that still stand today and moved water hundreds of miles to where it was needed. We are able to do the same on an even greater scale if "We the People" start asking why and why not? One letter from each USA located member to each of his or her representative will be noticed for sure. We can no longer rest comfortably that "our" government works for us unless "we" remind them. Again, this is NOT a Party specific interest -it doesn't matter what your party affiliation- it IS an interest for all of us. I think we all know that word of mouth spreads like wildfire and bad news travels nearly the speed of light. Well, we all have a need for H2O and when the local well runs dry we need an alternative and a National Pipeline is the only permanent solution. So, what have my fellow HEF members to say???
I like it.
The question we need to ask is, is this something the government ought to be doing? Does the government have any authority to do it at all? Where do we derive the authority to tax the money away from some people and use it for some project that may or may not benefit said people or some other people? What do we do with those who cannot or will not pay? Throw them in jail? What do we do if they won't go? Hit them with a billy club? Shoot them? The reason private businesses do better at this sort of thing is that they have to make it work or someone goes bust. If the government does it then nobody really cares about how well the project is going. Eventually it turns to worthless buraucracy and/or tyranny like everything else the government takes from the private sector. If it is a good idea, take it to some investment people and see if you can scare up the money, and you will get rich in the process.
I think we have those allready, i think we call them rivers...
"Allocating funds" assumes that there are funds to allocate. The correct vocabulary would be "borrow funds". I do not think that the gov't should be in control of the water supply. Every gov't run program that we know today is mismanaged and over budget. Why would you want the gov't (with all its bipartisan faults) to have control over the water supply? Isn't water expensive enough as it is? From a national defense standpoint as well as strategic and environmental reasons, you do not want the entire country's water supply linked on a grid. Pollutants and chemical agents would all to easily circulate through the system. Installing a national water pipeline would probably bring about the end of terrorist bombing attempts- poisoning the national water grid would be easier and more devastating.
biggest factor prohibiting it is the scale at which it would be required to be effective and how to pay for it. A 48" pipe doesnt, even under pressure water a dozen illinois corn fields very well. Also If the rivers are overflowing their banks a 48" pipe isnt going to take enough water away to make a difference when a river that was 250 yards wide had just doubled in width. As some have already said we already have that, Its called river, they are right. So we are talking laying what a 10' diameter pipe from where to where? The idea is facinating, but is best left at the coffee table.
I think it's an interesting idea. It's actually something I was thinking about myself, when reading about the drought conditions earlier in the year. Yeah. It should be in the hands of private industry, like everybody's other favorite liquid, gasoline. Oh, wait... I think what SeaMac was proposing wasn't necessarily drinking water, but for agricultural purposes. The rivers, as mentioned above, are just as subject to poisoning as a national, or even regional, irrigation grid would be. I think stumpjumper hits the nail on the head here. Not just about a 10' main line, but on the simple logistics of distributing the product over thousands of square miles of land once you've shipped it from the wet region to the dry one. And it's also more of a contingency thing, not something that would be needed every year, making it harder to recover the cost. Well, we have a pretty creative bunch of minds sitting around a virtual coffee table here. What would it take to make the idea workable?
In a word, MONEY. Irrigation already costs a lot of money when the source of water is free. If there's a water bill added to all the other costs, crop prices would have to be higher to cover the expenses. If it's just for watering crops, I think that there's very good potential for using reclaimed grey water and treated reclaimed sewer water. Water quality standards would have to be pretty strict for any crops destined for human consumption- think about the e-coli outbreaks from unpasteurized apple cider and various vegetable crops. Also, when moving water from one watershed to another, there would be the involvement of whichever local and federal alphabet agencies that oversee everything that has anything to do with water.
I believe one Meester Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi has already done this. It only cost him around US$33B - and he just happened to be sitting on a whole ocean of oil, to help pay fer it all. Unfortunately, it seems he's not around to see the highly-doubtful long-term benefits of his little pet project. Sucking all the water from the non-replenishing Nubian Sandstone aquifers, to try and grow some VERY expensive food, isn't going to rate very highly in water economics studies. SeaMac - The principle sounds good - but when you take into account the 30% or 40% in water losses - and the necessary pumping required - it just doesn't rate, on a costs VS economics basis. In addition, the water source has to have constant and substantial replenishment - to make up for water drawdown - and increasing drawdown in future years, with ever-increasing demand. We have the same problem right here in Australia. The North of Australia has oceans of water from monsoonal rains, that largely goes to waste, via runoff into Northern seas. Trying to get that water to the often-parched South of Australia, economically, has defeated most visionaries. The relatively cheap cost of desalination is still a hands-down winner. The Great Man Made River Project - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-cDezY3cTY Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River
Pretty much sums it up right there..:cool2 National debt - http://www.usdebtclock.org/ With 16 Trillion in debt and growing, the country can't afford to buy drinking straws much less plan a national water system...:cool2
With 16 Trillion in debt and growing, the country can't afford to buy drinking straws much less plan a national water system...:cool2[/QUOTE] Lets just keep populating the planet until peole start falling off the edge of it.
Incidentally, we here in the West of Oz are a little ahead of the curve when it comes to distributing water over long distances. In the late 1890's, a proposal to build a 300 mile pipeline to send water that distance to the goldfields of Western Australia, from a dam on the Western edge of the State, was deemed utter madness and an exercise in futility. The State needed the water in Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie to support the massive burgeoning gold industry that had recently rocketed to world news levels, because of the richness of the West Australian goldfields. A fine young Irish engineer proposed a project consisting of a dam, a 300 mile, 30 inch pipeline, and 8 steam pumping stations, to supply the necessary water to the W.A. Goldfields. The project was supported and endorsed by the State Premier at that time. The project went ahead, but under a huge amount of criticism, at the massive cost of $5,000,000 (in 1890's money), when the State population was only 148,000 people. C.Y. O'Connor, unfortunately, committed suicide under the enormous pressure of criticism, shortly before the project was completed, thus depriving the world of a brilliant engineer. His project still stands, and still operates every day - although it has been substantially upgraded, and the steam pumps are long gone. The project was a total success - but only because of the vast amount of wealth produced from the West Australian Goldfields since that time. The water was mostly used for human consumption, and local salt water was used in the mining processes. As a result, losses due to evaporation were very small, and the water wasn't used on a large scale to produce crops, that can be very high consumers of water. It's said that the amount of gold extracted from the Goldfields of Western Australia, has repaid the build cost of the Goldfields Water Supply project, more than a hundredfold over a period of 110 years. C. Y. O'Connor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._O'Connor The Golden Pipeline - http://www.goldenpipeline.com.au/00/index.shtml The Golden Pipeline Story - http://kalgoorlietourism.com/downloads/The_Golden_Pipeline.pdf
Does the name William Mulholland strike a bell? He was the engineer behind robbing the water from western California and moving it to the L.A. basin using canals and syphons. I suspect that the people with the water may have a lot to say about moving it to areas more arid to encourage those areas expansion and comfort. The farmers in Mulholland's case did not have the resourses to fight him (lawyers and money), the people in the North East do. Rick
Just forget about it Jake, It's Chinatown
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_10.html And read Cadillac Desrt by the late Mark Reisner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkbebOhnCjA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert
We have a huge irrigation project in Washington State that converted huge tracks of desert into productive farm land. Most people think of Grand Coulee dam as just a power source but I think the larger benefit is the massive amount of crop land water that it provides. The federal project was negotiated in WWII to supply power for the creation of component parts of the atom bombs used on Japan. That should give you an idea of what it would take to get something like this done in this country. The real problem with moving water into a national system is who's water are you going to take and who are you going to give it to. And if you are going to do that what are you going to give me in return for my right to the water? Finally, as the example of California's financial elite stealing the Colorado river shows, the water would be used to make rich people richer at the expense of those that couldn't afford to put up the fight. The recent limiting factor on water in this country now is wild life. Salmon is the buzz word that increases the tension for every farmer from northern California right into Canada. Two power producing dams on the Elwa river system on the Olympic peninsula have been torn down in the name of fish habitat. One more was demolished down in the White Salmon area of the Columbia River basin. There have been and probably still are court cases climbing the ladder for final decision on the Snake River dams. Put salmon on the endangered species act and the question of who's water will become moot. The government would then make life very difficult for a lot of people.
You are right, Grand Coulee, along with Hoover, are both Bureau of Reclamation projects. The other dams are owned either by the BPA or local PUD's
As John C stated "The real problem with moving water into a national system is who's water are you going to take and who are you going to give it to. And if you are going to do that what are you going to give me in return for my right to the water? Finally, as the example of California's financial elite stealing the Colorado river shows, the water would be used to make rich people richer at the expense of those that couldn't afford to put up the fight. " Google 'Aqueducts of California' and you will find a system of relocating large amounts of water from one region to another. At various times they have had their sights set on the Columbia River and even further north to the water of Alaska. Also google Lake Mead
its an interesting thought, but i think that a country liek the size of Canada or USA,it would not be a feasable feat. just the shear expense of the project to start with, and what about the maintance cost of thousands and thousands of mile of pipe. as well what happens if there is a disaster of some form up stream, would/could that comtaminate the whole country ?
I wish I could find that film I saw in 1981 about Walter Hinkels idea for a system of canals, dams and pipelines to transport a portion of the Yukon River down to the SW USA. Extensive pump systems were going to be needed, and the plan was to build nuclear power plants for the energy
Interesting. I don't know. I think it never became national only because it is a regional thing. By that I mean generally you don't have to go all the way across the nation to find water, maybe just into another state, or another aquifer. Also most towns I know of, if a developer wants to build houses in a place where there's no city water or sanitary sewer, the town generally makes the developer pay the cost of putting in lines from the end of the existing pipe to the development.(I mean in addition to the pipe work actually in the development.) Now I don't know if I buy into the "government is always bad and/or wrong" argument, but if the only homes or buildings to be served by a particular utility line are a developers paying customers, maybe it's fair to make him pay for it? There is plenty of other work to do rebuilding the existing infrastructure. Don't get me wrong I would not be opposed to any construction, I am just describing possible reasons it hasn't happened, you know what I mean.
WOW! Okay then, seems I've struck a nerve but in a good way, dialogue is always welcome it's how new and workable ideas are turned into reality. So, now that I have some attention here are a few more of my thoughts on the subject. I'll start with the National Security issue, I have worked on numerous water and waste water treatment plants both as an Electrical Contractor and an Operator. I can assure you there are security measures currently in place -though having installed them I cannot speak of them- and even better technology coming online which lends peace of mind that any proposed or actually constructed system could and would be protected. It is being done now as it should be and it will only get better so securing such a system from biological, chemical or any sort of terrorist activity has to be looked at in a reasonable manner. Funding? Okay, this is a fair and reasonable concern. Let me propose this, can we afford not too? There are Gov't Bonds that can be issued with Congressional approval that will pay a dividend on investment meaning we're actually investing in our Country as well as making strides to secure our future. If one doesn't consider water as a national assest which lends itself to national security, he or she is ill-informed. If something of this scale is seriously considered it will absolutely require a joint-venture between Gov't and private sector I cannot envision any other way. For those who mentioned rivers, yes rivers are a natural means of delivering water but rivers are NOT controllable, we have tried before though we have never succeeded, they will if they choose runneth o'er the banks. Mother Nature is a true force to be rekoned with and She will always have the upper hand. The system I think of is for agriculture and drinking and I know it can be done, it just takes a movement in the right direction to get it accomplished. Here in Florida we are experiencing record breaking rains while Texas is suffering extreme drought conditions, trust me Texas would benefit greatly from our excess rain. I do recognize the magnitude of such a concept but in the long run we would benefit, jobs would be created and any economist worth their salt will tell you, when you create new jobs you're actually revitalizing stagnate communities while creating new ones in the process. There seemed to be a lot of negativity in some of the replies to my OP and that's good it gets those with opposing views to think, thinking is always productive. I am certain within HEF there exist enough brain power to figure how to successfully accomplish such a feat. I am also certain if a workable idea comes to fruition there's enough clout here to get the ball rolling and I mean this seriously. So, without further adieu let's keep this flowing in the right direction -pun intended... Side Note 1: I just wanted to add this for those who think security of such a pipeline would be an issue. I am certain there are members here that either have experienced what I'm to speak of or know someone who has. There are places in the this country ie, railroad tracks, natural gas pipelines, crude oil pipelines and other areas where one wouldn't even have a clue. If you so much as scratch the surface with a hand shovel, within minutes and I am NOT exaggerating, minutes you will be surrounded by black Suburbans/Tahoes in which ride the real MIB and these fine men are not at all friendly. For those who don't believe come to Florida and dig within 50' of the FEC tracks or anywhere on the east shoulder of the Florida Turnpike but make dam sure you have your ID and no pending legal issues of your own. Side Note 2: In further reponse to the previously mentioned rivers as a current means of excess water conveyance. It would be extremely foolhearty and foolish not to utilize natural topography and waterways where applicable in designing any such system. The cost savings from using nature goes a long towards offsetting any aggregate total which would clearly run in to the billions. Side Note 3: My memory is faling me at the moment but not long ago there was a show on TV which involved the Pentagon's study of future National concerns and potential for warfare, oil as we would all certainly agree was #1. The #2 spot was water or the lack thereof, food for thought on the serious nature of this matter.
One possible solution might be saltwater desalination. The oceans cover most of Earth, and they are all water. Seawater is not good drinking water because it has so much salt. But if the salt is removed, it's drinkable. I wonder why it hasn't been done. (Maybe cost too much to be feasible?). It would be a source of salt as well as water. SeaMac you mentioned Texas, they have the Gulf of Mexico. Just an idea.
I have done the electrical scope for a few desal plants and from what I was able to gather, they are ridiculously expensive to design, construct, operate and maintain. In the Florida Keys there has been such a facility for years for those who reside in Key West and from the onset it has been nothing but a headache. I am sure there are better systems out there and if they combined with other systems and technologies are put to work as a cohesive plan then you've got something. From what I have always known rain is free, just getting what hits the ground to places that need it most is the problem. I'm all for any solution to a problem that has yet to receive the attention and concern it deserves.
We have two desalination plants in Western Australia, which are currently providing a substantial % of the water for human consumption in the state capital, Perth - a city of nearly 2M people. They use the reverse osmosis membrane treatment process which is a proven, viable, and economic method of producing fresh water. The sea water is pumped through the membrane, and every now and then the membrane is backflushed. There are numerous other desalination plants scattered throughout Southern Australia. Some are still in the construction stage. At this point in time, the cost of desalinated water is so much cheaper than any other source, it's a no-brainer. By the end of 2012, the two desalination plants South of Perth will supply nearly 50% of Perths water for human consumption, making us world leaders in the reliance on desalination for the support of human life. http://www.watercorporation.com.au/d/desalination.cfm However, desalination for cropping useage will never be economic, as far as I can see. The major problems with a major water transportation and useage project, are - 1. Controlling losses via leakage and evaporation .. 2. Ensuring that the water useage is highly economic (i.e. - high value crops are produced for minimal water useage. Cotton is a typical high-water-volume-useage crop that is relatively low in value) .. 3. Ensuring that the water source is replenishing at a sustainable rate .. 4. Ensuring that fair and equitable compensation is given to those whose lives are adversely affected by a major water transportation project. I seem to recall that large numbers of small wars, bitter fighting, and many deaths have resulted from squabbles over "water theft", and water "rights" - not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Many laws set in stone that relate to water rights have been purchased with large amounts of blood. I can recall at least one book written about "The Water Wars of the 21st Century" - whereby the author claimed that the Wars fought in this century, will not be over oil or land - but they'll be based around that rapidly-depleting vital liquid - drinkable water.
Oz, The desal plants I was involved with were R.O. and again they were ridiculously expensive. Could be Down Under, you've got the recipe right. I know that in California they seem to have it right as the GC on one of the plants built a few out west. Jacques Cousteau himself once said the Earth's oceans could be our saviour or our demise, would be nice to have the former not the latter though.
How about people don't build a house where there is no water, don't grow crops that require more wate than can be provided. Me, I dont have city water, I don't pay a water bill and i dont want my taxes to pay for a national water grid.
Cause we're the human race. Using technology to push outward is just kinda what we do.....
When there is no other source, then desalination is practical, and expensive. Ships at sea have used distilling plants ever since there was steam to make them work. It requires huge amounts of heat and would not be practical in any other application. Reverse Osmosis also requires huge amounts of power to run the pumps and the maintenance on those plants is also very expensive. At our level of discussion we are talking smoke. There is nothing that we on the board can do about it. Make it a national discourse and with a world war driving the necessity of such a program it has maybe a twenty percent chance of happening. Promoting conservation of the resource and efficient usage is the best that can be done in the current political climate under the current laws in force.
Side Note 3: Was it this documentary , or this one ? Probably neither, just a guess... :idea OCR
It's to late, Los Angeles is getting water from our valley via the California Aquaduct also the Owens and Colorado rivers. Water is big business in big cities.
Unless you're tapped into an endless supply of water, one day your well too will run dry. I don't believe there exist a need for taxation to create such a system. Humanity as a whole needs to start helping one another since our collective governments don't seem to be doing such a grand job of it now.
OCR, I have just returned home from the day shift and have to go back to work the graveyard shift, I'll have to view your links later. Thanks...
It is a good idea,worthy of thinking this problem.
australia is doing just this as we speak. But it uses LARGE amounts of power and is very expensive. Its really a last resort sort of thing
OCR, Nope neither, I think it was on the Discovery or The Learning Channel. I still can't remember though...
As I previously mentioned, I have done the electrical work on a few R.O. Desal plants and I have to agree it should only be considered as a last resort. They are ridiculously expensive to build and operate. I'm still sticking with the "rain is free" idea, just getting it where it's needed most is the quandary...
Thats more of a water storage and controll issue, then we get into the NIMBY idiots and the eco-mentalists.
Thanks for the links Oz......The PDF was an interesting read.
Up to this point in the thread, we've only been talking about this in the broader context without any specifics. SeaMac, you use the rains in FL and the drought in TX as an example. Let's put some numbers on how much water is needed in TX. It doesn't have to come from FL, but let's establish a quantity needed for one area to use as an example. Once there are some real world numbers attached to an example, we'll know if we're talking about trying to fly a lead balloon or not.
Agreed joispoi, I don't have any numbers, but I have a feeling it's canal of some size and not a pipe of any size.
joispoi, Excellent question and thanks to the statistically minded at NOAA I should be able to come up with the inches of excess water in Florida and the deficit in Texas. I would have to agree in part with chroniekon though, I think the scale would be some very large pipes when they are required.
Water deficits and excesses in inches... As promised I conducted some research into how much water via rain Texas is lacking and how much rainwater Florida has received in excess. The numbers if to be believed are quite staggering. Seems Texas usually receives 34+ inches of rain annually and at present has only had about 7" fall upon the Big Star State. In contrast Florida which generally receives 40+ has been blessed/cursed by Mama Natur' with nearly a foot more. If you consider land mass and average rainfall covering said we are talking about staggering amounts of water here. Now, some meteorologist and weather "experts" are warning of permanent drought conditions for this Nation's bread basket and this truly cannot be allowed to happen. If ever there were a time for serious discussion and proposals for ways to mitigate water shortfalls, I think it would be now. Clearly we don't have to agree on everything but when there exist an undeniable problem we can't close our eyes and wish it away, now can we? I ask all of you, who better to come up with a solution than those who might actually end up building the solution?
The problem your figures are lacking is harvesting, collecting, and consolidating the rainfall in a manner suitable for transport via pipeline. I would require massive reservoirs, almost as big as china's 3 gorges. Theres no way in a hot place you could ever get that approved with the amount of ecomentalists and rabid NIMBY screamers in todays society. Building the actual pipeline and pumping stations would be the cheep and easy part.
Dualie, I concur, getting approval for the needed reservoirs would certainly be a challenge let alone utilizing naturally existing water basins and rivers. You're correct again Sir, the actual pipeline and pumping stations would be the lessor cost. However, if you really think it through I don't believe we're left with much of a choice than to move forward with the idea. Environmentalist could be pacified if educated that proposed system in its entirety would make a great natural water filter plus the reservoirs offer wildlife a place of refuge as well as the potential for parks and recreation aka the TVA. As for the NIMBY minded morons of the world, if scared enough about real and upcoming inabilities to take a shower and wash their precious BMW's they would probably hop on board with of course certain conditions. If you review the USGS topography charts of the Continental US we pretty much have at least some of the work already completed for by plate tectonics, now all we have to do is manipulate what's there already then augment it with modern technology. I do understand the reluctance and hesitation for many to embrace the idea but what I would remind those is this, in our lifetime's it will become a very serious problem and it is better to be proactive than reactive. As in combat, never find yourself on the defensive as you have already given the enemy the upper hand and advantage, it being harder to get back what you have previously fought for. I for one am as tenacious as a Pitbull and won't give up the notion or idea over what in the long run will end up as trivial concerns when faced with a real problem of biblical proportions.
I'm curious, what exactly do you feel building this entire network would cost, and how do you figure it could be built without the need for taxation to fund it? I think it's a novel idea, but I also feel you might have he whole situation blown a bit out of proportion. I wholeheartedly agree that there are areas that could use the water, but a nationwide system is a bit much. Perhaps several smaller systems that are regional would be a good idea, as they would be cheaper to build, address specific problem areas, and also be easier to secure. I just don't see the need for an overly expensive pipeline system, that would likely not be needed across the entire country.
Alco, I'm no number cruncher but billions sounds about right. If you've read the entire thread you'd see that taxes are not a solution rather US Bonds where we can purchase and invest in the project ourselves as well private sector money since a great deal of water is in fact used by industry. I can do nothing but agree with the idea of regional systems but even then there are regions that could be affected by drought conditions where a more vast national system would overcome such troubles. I don't believe that I am blowing anything out of proportion on the contrary I feel that I am acting in a educated and proactive manner whereby bringing to light a subject that even the US Military and DHS currently finds important enough to prepare for. Let me put it this way, most aren't aware that "overly expensive pipeline systems" currently exist. They do, in fact they move crude oil from the Gulf to refineries in the Midwest, they move natural gas all over the country and then of course there's electricity which if needed Turkey Point, FPL's nuclear plant in South Dade County, FL could supply power to Seattle, WA although with voltage drop it might only light a single 40 watt bulb but it could be done. So, there are plenty of national pipeline systems currently in place and I'm not certain but I don't believe a single tax dollar was spent on any of them. It was a solution to a need that created them.
I think a cost of Billions would be a bit low. I think by the time all is said and done, you would be looking at a cost of Trillions. In an economy where people are losing their jobs, homes and pretty much everything some of them own, where will the money come from to buy the bonds you propose. Keep in mind, this system, in order to be effective and efficient enough to justify it's existence, is going to have to be far more substantial than the pipeline systems you referenced. That's why I referred to it as overly expensive. It's going to cost far more to put a system with sufficient capacity in place, than to build any of the smaller systems you mentioned. I do think you have the whole thing a bit blown out of proportion with comments suggesting that we will reach a disaster of biblical proportions in the next 40 or so years due to no water.
Alco, As always, everyone has an absolute entitlement to their own opinions. I would suggest you research Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security studies into the matter I think you might be surprised to find that your 40 years down the road assertion is a far stretch beyond the 20 - 25 years they ARE preparing for. My reference to biblical proportions takes in to account the dumbing down of society to the point where mass hysteria is a very real concern -again, I'll reference Pentagon and DHS here- and the simple fact folks will panic and the outcome most definitely will appear as if the end is near. Sadly, I'll be sitting at home laughing even as cold and cruel as that sounds because the writing was written clearly on the wall and most chose to ignore the message. I'm not preaching that which I don't honestly believe in either. I have written and done so repeatedly all my Government Representatives and oddly they all agree with my concerns and assure me they are working on a long term solution and a national means to convey water where it's needed is foremost on their thoughts. I kind of believe in doing my part to the best of my ability to get the word out, call me old-fashioned or patriotic it's the way I believe we all should act when faced with an absolute problem on the horizon. You know it wasn't long ago when some couldn't be convinced the Earth was on a warming trend, and now those same are left with the question what do we now, when now is just a little too late.
I like the idea of more regional type water systems like lake & dam projects that a rural or city water company could tap in to for use.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have built allot of lake projects in my area and they seem to work good for flood controll ,recreation,and a water source for communitys. www.usace.army.mil/About/History/BriefHistoryoftheCorps.aspx www.usace.army.mil/Missions/EmergencyOperations/Drought.aspx
Okay, I have to apologize but I'm sensing from recent replies a disconnect from something that once made this Country great and it is beginning to frustrate me greatly. So, I have to ask whatever happened to "We the People" or "of these United States"? Have we ulitmately become a nation of regions where it doesn't matter what happens in the "other" region or that next state over? Perhaps I should phone Florida Power & Light (FPL) and insist that if a hurricane make landfall in "another" state they withhold their 1600 bucket trucks and three times as many linemen and women because it's really not our problem anyway. I think it's great the idea of regional systems and it shouldn't be done any other way BUT there has to be a national connection between all regional systems. The same way we install balancing tubes for drainage, everything is connected! For those just reading this thread, please, read the whole thread from the OP it will shed a great deal of light. The concerns for system security are moot, far more complex systems are secure beyond belief. The need for taxation is irrelevant, it won't be needed and no member of Congress nor I is dumb enough to suggest it. The USACE is already developing a conceptual plan for the system I have proposed and as far as the folks I personally know in the Jacksonville District Office have told me it IS doable and it IS going to happen one way or another. Why? Because it is a system scientist, ecologist, meteorologist, climatologist, geologist and so on know has to be created to balance the nations water supply. Most people apparently don't know that through the advent of commercial/industrial farming the nations largest aquifer under the bread basket is going to run completely dry in about 10 - 15 years. So I ask you, do you like to eat? I firmly believe in discussion and heated debate, but before you come to the table please.....do some research. We can go 'round and 'round with BS but what matters most is we are a Nation not regions and there's a history behind us that reminds us, when "We the People of these United States" have a problem it is a problem for all of us and all of us band together to help ALL OF US! I'll sum it up, there are three kinds of people in this world those who affiliate themselves with the solution, those that affiliate themselves with the problem and the remainder who simply don't care about anything other than themselves. No offense to anyone but you really do have to ask yourself who do wish to affliliate yourself with?
Texas is missing 114.5 CUBIC MILES of water. You'd need 12,901 square miles of 50 foot deep reservoirs to hold all that water. You'd have to put 20% of the state of Florida under 50 feet of water to have enough to make up for the shortfall in Texas. Most reservoirs have a mean depth in the 15-30 ft range. Now for the sake of this discussion, let's pretend that it would be possible to collect every drop of excess rainfall in Florida. That's 12.5 cubic miles of water. You'd need 1,320 square miles of 50 ft deep reservoirs to hold all that water. That's the area equivalent of 18 Florida towns.
First off, BS. You can't say that people are unAmerican because they don't agree with you or share your interest in this idea. (Before you get self-righeous, be sure that you're even right). This country was CREATED by the uniting of separate regions- we call them STATES. States come to one anothers' aid all the time. With that said, there is no better body to see to the individual states' needs than the states themselves. There are far more than 3 kinds of people in the world. You make no mention of tinfoil hat wearing lunatics that divide their time between preparing for potential disasters that might possibly occur and evangelising their fears. I've done my research. Go find 18 Florida towns that want to go under water so that we can start building this pipeline thingy that the good (although seemingly mathematically and statistically challenged) people from the Jacksonville regional USACE office say we're going to build. I don't mind a heated debate, but you completely lost my respect when you tried to imply that it's unpatriotic to not be on board with this idea. Good ideas don't need fear and shame tactics to sell them!
I've been enjoying the discussion, but I sense the temperature in the room rising... :cool2
Now... that isn't a tin foil hat , right??... Sometimes, if you put a hat on inside a room, the comfort zone can change. In this case... I think the Moderator hat will work, though... lol OCR
All right, First of all I am not calling anyone unpatriotic and sincerely apologize if it was taken that way, and I'm certainly no lunatic who wraps his head at night in tin foil to thwart off the one-world-goverment-electromagnetic-brainbeam. If I and we think clearly we could look back in history and remember that Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) once had to purchase land and people who lived on those lands had to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the whole. That is what I am saying, we Americans are always willing to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the Country as a whole it was my sense that that spirit was waining. If 18 towns in Florida have to become a reservoir so the masses can drink water and have food on the table then so be it. In reality there's an abundance of unoccupied land in virtually every state that could be utilized, c'mon guys building dams is nothing new and behind those dams is something and somewhere that's now underwater. Like I keep saying, it is an unavoidable situation unless we do something and discussing it IS doing something. Again, I do apologize if anyone here took my previous post as calling those in disagreement unAmerican, to disagree or not is what makes Americans who they are and is what allows us to prevail over challenges big and small.
Here are some more numbers to help put into perspective the scope of the project you are proposing. Assuming joispoi's 114.5 shortfall number for Texas already mentioned. Using a river that flows 100,000 cubic feet per second, it would take a little over five years to make up that volume of water. The Missouri River is currently flowing around 86,000 cu ft/sec. The Mississippi flows between 200k and 700k and is currently around 500k. So tap the Mississippi and you can cut it down to a year.
chroniekon, I know the numbers are going to be huge, I'm also aware that it will take time, serious engineering, planning and discussion to even see the fruits of a conceptual idea. Hey, it's a start though...
Maybe spend the money figuring out how to alter the climate so it will rain where you want it to or cloning people that were effective rain dancers.
Okay, I'll get on that straight away! :cool2
Well boys look at South Dakota in the middle 70's. Different water projects were designed and started. Thanks to the great Jimmie Carter, ACLU, Sierria Club, and Audubon Society they were stopped. Your left wing faction in this country will never let it happen and don't fool yourself to think it will. Just research the S. Dak. projects-quite interesting.
To this thread's contributing HEF members, After some serious thought and consideration I think it would be in the best interest for all that this thread be locked. It was my intent to create a venue for discussion about a very real topic. My concern was essentially for the Farmers and Ranchers who are losing their crops, livestock and livelihood due to historic, unpredictable, unforeseen and potentially permanent drought conditions. I did not post the original thread to evangelize or use scare tactics to get my OWN point across moreover to invite opinions and insight from others. I will now respectfully bow out of further discussion on this matter should the power's that be choose not to lock this thread.... :waving
SeaMac I think you have some very good ideas and I like the tech your using. Really do believe that we need to be looking at alot of alternates. I believe alot of this conversation is good and thats what led me to say what I did about the projects in the 70's. I believe that there is a ton of small projects that would be very benefical to the nation, like the way you do H2O and etc. Enjoyed reading it. Oh ya, my state is the most drought sticken in the country at the present time.
Certainly, anyone (and that would include any Opening Poster), who wishes to opt out of any discussion is always welcome to do so. Really though, there's nothing here at this time that warrants closing the thread, as long as people are still interested in putting their 2 cents worth in. Once the subject has gotten boring, people will stop posting...
Interesting actions on your part, I really can't figure out what your goal was/is. You hypothesize upon a monumental plan to us "because who better than those who will build it". But when some question the price, need, feasibility and wether it will become a boon-doogle, you start throwing out terms like "NIMBY" and inferring that those who question your grandiose plan are defeatists. Then you turn your nose up and with more than a little smugness tell us you are no longer participating in this thread, and it should be locked. I think that is very strange and more than a little pompous, paternalistic and arrogant. You are telling us that you know best about the pipeline and this thread, and you know best what should be discussed. There is no reason to close this thread, and any problems which ensue in this thread are completely your doing. We are all adults, and deserve to discuss what we want, and to follow tangents there-in within reason, without your pedantic interference.
Okay then, Please excuse my pendantic interference but clearly Knocker, you didn't read the entire thread from the beginning. Let me clarify, I wasn't the one who brought up NIMBY nor much of the other "issues" I merely brought to the table for discussion, a concern if you will about a very real problem nearer to the horizon than one might think. The intent was again, discussion perhaps debate however, what materialized was argument and now name calling, not what I had in mind. With that said I, being the OP thought it best for HEF to lock this thread before the temperature rose beyond the boiling point. My grandiose plan in reality actually does take into consideration an undeniable problem. I tend not to dwell under a rock -not saying anyone here does either- therefore I try to keep a finger on the pulse of this Nation and believe that those "in charge" aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. I truly believe that within HEF exists some extremely talented and knowledgeable members which is precisely why I joined to learn from them and if possible share what little I might be able to. I felt stongly and still do that the members here could figure out a viable solution not involving the cost or from where that money might come just the technical matters. But as you see even by your own reply, my presence in this thread has become an unwanted distraction keeping the topic obscured. One more thing Knocker then I'll show my pompous self to the door. For the foreseeable future at least I'm good as far as water goes, it was an altruistic concern for those that aren't. I have invested in an emerging technology for my home and shop that is currently in service with the US Military which will create potable water from atmospheric humidity down to 10% and doesn't require that much energy to do so.
What happened?
Seriously? :idea
Just a guess, but I'd bet that the repeated use of the words "you" and "your" probably made SeaMac feel it would be impolite not to reply. :beatsme
No, I understand that you have a pathological need to lecture us about the way to do things, as well as getting the last word.
I know nothing about water purification but I have to ask. Is it possible to cleanup ocean water for plants but not for human consumption? I would think pumping water from the ocean that could be filtered or what ever and used for agricalture would take a huge burden off the water supply.
That's what happens when you make a thread about yourself. I guess we'll see if he responds further. My guess is that he will
Processes such as that take a lot of energy, with all the inherent geo-political ramifications
You guess correct. Ironically Knocker I spoke with the Pathologist just yesterday, he informed me that I am indeed on the right path for early retirement. Yay! Which means I can spend even more time engaging in **** chat with you, oh what fun we'll have. YAY! :falldownlaugh
I know just slightly more than nothing, but "cleaning up" ocean water is done by evaporating the water and then condensing it again, in order to leave the salt behind. So, no, plants would need it just as clean as humans in that regard. Now, plants might actually be happier with the effluent from a sewage treatment plant that hadn't been made clean enough for human consumption...
I think this is still an interesting topic. If you guys want to duke it out, you're welcome to do so via PM. :cool2
That's no fun. I'd much prefer to stay focused on the original topic and thank you, I thought it was worthy of interest too. As for buckfever's question, I know this isn't new but a year ago I did a project for a State Prison/Work Farm which had it's own water and wastewater treatment plants. We installed a sprinkler system using reclaimed water from the wastewater plant so they could irrigate their own crops. Interesting to note, they use the same reclaimed water for bathing and laundry. I can't attest to what the Plant Operator claimed but he swore that in 10 years the technology will exist to make reclaimed water potable water. Thanks but no thanks...
Filters can also be used, which in essence what a RO system is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Osmosis
I have a friend who use to work for a company called Aquatech. He would design the filter systems to clean water that was used in steam fired power plants. Now I'm not sure of the process or the chemicals used but they would put a aditive in the dirty water and it would cause the heavy minerals to settle to the bottom. I also remeber him saying that chlorine (sp?) was the hardest thing to get out. If something like this needed to be put in place I have a hard time believing that a simple yet effective solution is possible.
Crap I type to slow. Now that you bring it up I do remember a type of septic system used in the lower 48 that filtered water through a peat filter then pumped it into a sprinkler for the lawn. I believe this was used in alabama. I don't see why you couldn't fillter the lightly chlorinate the water then use it on plants. They do almost the same thing before they empty the waste water into a stream or river.
Kind of different problems. I've worked at many a fossil-fueled steam generating power plant, and boilers and turbines need pure water. Minerals can leave deposits inside the water tubes, which slow heat transfer and will eventually lead to the exterior of the water tubes burning thru. I'm not sure what problems chlorine would cause, maybe a chemical-metalurgical stress. Our gut handles minerals without to much problem.
buckfever, Not knowing about other States but in Florida any new commercial building where there's a need for landscape irrigation -almost all- and there's "purple pipe" nearby they are required to use reclaimed water for the purpose same goes for any and all golf courses and if purple pipe isn't near the developer will bring it near at their cost. As for making reclaimed potable hmm.....something stinky 'bout that to me.
Ok, for purposes of argument, oh, excuse me, purposes of discussion; why would an application of this technology not be a good alternative to a pipeline? I assume this is some variation on a solar still? Does it have too low a production rate per square foot of area covered? is it too expensive?
I didn't know that Seamac. I was thinking more along the lines of using the filtered septic water for plants and leaving natures purified water for drinking. But seeing that this is already in practise I will have to let my brain chew on this for a little while.
It probably uses the condensate from chilled air. While Uncle Sam may need it for our soldiers, it is probably price prohibitive to use it for muncipal needs, much less the tens of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet used by industry and agri-business
No Sir on the solar still, it could be useful as an alternative to a pipeline if say a state the size of Texas were to become the plant iself. At my home I have a unit outside no bigger than a Central Air Condenser Unit and it basically uses the same technology. You can for around $800 purchase a water cooler for your home or office -I have one at the shop- which uses the exact same technology. As for the US Military their units are the size of ocean going containers and are scalable. You can simply Google water from air and see that there are all kinds of companies hopping on this bandwagon. For right now though it's early in its growth stage. Oh yeah, the unit outside my home cost $50k, not inexpensive at all but 15' away sits a $60k whole house generator. After multiple hurricanes in just a few short years you learn to prepare.
Exactly!
Well, that certainly is far removed from any emerging technology. Uses the exact same "technology" that is employed in foggy windows. The energy used is dependant on the ambient temperature and the water content of the atmosphere, but it would be large when municipal quantities are discussed. It would probably take a fairly substantial electric power plant completely dedicated to the chillers for even a large town. So I would imagine that many large thermal or nuclear power plants would be needed to run aquifer scale chillers. So you will run headlong into the enviro-, geo- and petro-politics of the world. Problem here is that power plants are a net user of water. What to do? Where exactly would any canal and pipeline system go? While West Texas is the most drought stricken area now, the population centers of Phoenix and LA would seemingly become magnets for Florida water due to their political voice. But it could also be argued that replenishment of the Ogallala aquifer would be the initial prime candidate for water. But this would again entail huge power plants to run the enormous number of pumps. All this without any tax funding, by government fiat, for the betterment of the people. Didn't Lenin, Stalin and Mao already try this?
without the $$$ nothing happens. And with the operating debt this country is accumulating now i dont see the money ever coming about.