PDA

View Full Version : Yet more floods, but still some areas in droughts.. Why can't they pipe/ship it?



garhkal
06-26-2014, 05:05 AM
One thing i have always wondered is we have areas of the country (west coast, New mexico etc) with long lasting droughts, but we have other areas continually getting flooded out.
Being both cases cost money to resolve, wouldn't it make more sense to put that money to better use, like building a series of big pipes to take the water from the flooded areas, and pump it to those under drought conditions? Or if piping is unfeasable, how's about use those tanker trains to ship it over.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 10:34 AM
One thing i have always wondered is we have areas of the country (west coast, New mexico etc) with long lasting droughts, but we have other areas continually getting flooded out.
Being both cases cost money to resolve, wouldn't it make more sense to put that money to better use, like building a series of big pipes to take the water from the flooded areas, and pump it to those under drought conditions? Or if piping is unfeasable, how's about use those tanker trains to ship it over.

This can cause issues. I'm sure there's someway to make it work, but what I do know from being raised in Northern California is that a high percentage of our water was piped to SoCal. What this meant is that, even though we lived in an areas with plenty of rain and plenty of water, we still were on water restrictions most of the time.

There have been many discussions about NorCal becoming it's own state and this is one of the biggest reasons for that.

efmbman
06-26-2014, 12:07 PM
...even though we lived in an areas with plenty of rain and plenty of water, we still were on water restrictions most of the time.

An anology is hidden in there somewhere... resisting the urge.

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 05:42 PM
One thing i have always wondered is we have areas of the country (west coast, New mexico etc) with long lasting droughts, but we have other areas continually getting flooded out.
Being both cases cost money to resolve, wouldn't it make more sense to put that money to better use, like building a series of big pipes to take the water from the flooded areas, and pump it to those under drought conditions? Or if piping is unfeasable, how's about use those tanker trains to ship it over.

Can't say for sure, but it sounds cost-prohibitive.

Think of it this way; if someone could figure out a way to make money off of this, we'd be doing it already.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 05:58 PM
This can cause issues. I'm sure there's someway to make it work, but what I do know from being raised in Northern California is that a high percentage of our water was piped to SoCal. What this meant is that, even though we lived in an areas with plenty of rain and plenty of water, we still were on water restrictions most of the time.

There have been many discussions about NorCal becoming it's own state and this is one of the biggest reasons for that.

Hey California...you are right next to a huge ocean...why don't you get better at desalination?

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 06:15 PM
Hey California...you are right next to a huge ocean...why don't you get better at desalination?

Please refrain from lumping California together as a whole. We have no water problems in Northern California (and when I say Northern I'm referring to north of Sacramento).

And, to be fair, we live 7 hours from the ocean.

garhkal
06-26-2014, 06:58 PM
Can't say for sure, but it sounds cost-prohibitive.

Think of it this way; if someone could figure out a way to make money off of this, we'd be doing it already.

And is it not cost prohibitive to consistently pay out billions for flood damage, and drought damage year after year?

Is like the powr companies who spend a mil and a half each and every storm to repair damage to downed power lines (as well as cause all those headaches for consumers who get stuck with no power), why not spend the 10 mil to BURY the cables so they don't get damaged in the first place??

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 07:50 PM
Please refrain from lumping California together as a whole. We have no water problems in Northern California (and when I say Northern I'm referring to north of Sacramento).

And, to be fair, we live 7 hours from the ocean.

Yes...good point. I know there is a desalination plant in Santa Barbara that is not being used. It was built during a drought in the 90s I think...but, then allowed to deteriorate unused while the area had rain.

They are now considering firing it back up, but the cost to get it back up and running is almost as much as it was to build it because it's been allowed to go to hell...so they're basically hoping the El Nino that is predicted for this year will bring more rain.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 07:54 PM
Yes...good point. I know there is a desalination plant in Santa Barbara that is not being used. It was built during a drought in the 90s I think...but, then allowed to deteriorate unused while the area had rain.

They are now considering firing it back up, but the cost to get it back up and running is almost as much as it was to build it because it's been allowed to go to hell...so they're basically hoping the El Nino that is predicted for this year will bring more rain.

They always predict El Nino...

There are also issues with environmental factors effecting the sea life and the emmisions created by the plants. You'd think that on a planet that is 80% water we'd be good to go.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 07:58 PM
And is it not cost prohibitive to consistently pay out billions for flood damage, and drought damage year after year?



Not really. When I'm required to pay a higher insurance rate because I live in an area considered a "flood zone" the only cost prohibition is out of my own pocket. It's already a money maker for the insurance companies. If someone could make more than the insurance companies than it might get looked into.

As far as the cost of repairing power lines, it's not much more expensive, if at all, to continually repair power lines than it is to have to dig them up to repair them when they go bad. Besides, most of the cost is in the transformers, which are above ground anyway.

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 08:10 PM
They always predict El Nino...

There are also issues with environmental factors effecting the sea life and the emmisions created by the plants. You'd think that on a planet that is 80% water we'd be good to go.

From NOAA...looking strong that there will be one this year:


Next ENSO Update: July 10
NOAA's National Weather Service indicates El Niño may develop as early as summer or fall 2014. Typical El Niño impacts in the U.S. include above-average rainfall in the West and suppressed hurricane activity in the East, although neither is guaranteed and largely dependent on El Niño's strength. For information on what an El Niño event might mean for your region, follow our ENSO blog and connect with us on social media.


Don't even get me started on Environmental impact...

CYBERFX1024
06-26-2014, 08:14 PM
Yes...good point. I know there is a desalination plant in Santa Barbara that is not being used. It was built during a drought in the 90s I think...but, then allowed to deteriorate unused while the area had rain.
They are now considering firing it back up, but the cost to get it back up and running is almost as much as it was to build it because it's been allowed to go to hell...so they're basically hoping the El Nino that is predicted for this year will bring more rain.

They built one down in San Diego as well and will fire it up within the next couple of years. You live in Santa Barbara county right? The whole of SoCal is in need of alot of water right now. I routinely go up to the Central Valley and there are alot of farms hurting because of this.
Also one of the guys I talk to at the gym goes is a hay broker. Basically he goes around California and buys large amounts of Hay to resell it. He has told me that farmers he has talked to are resulting to actually trying to dig wells to get more water.

sandsjames
06-26-2014, 08:20 PM
From NOAA...looking strong that there will be one this year:



Don't even get me started on Environmental impact...

It's almost like our weather patterns are on some sort of cycle...

BENDER56
06-26-2014, 10:08 PM
And is it not cost prohibitive to consistently pay out billions for flood damage, and drought damage year after year?

Apparently not -- the evidence being that insurance companies make lots of money. If they weren't, they'd be doing something else. Paying claims is part of their business model.

garhkal
06-27-2014, 06:57 AM
They already have desalination plants? Why the heck did they just let them go to S)(@)?

CYBERFX1024
06-27-2014, 08:19 PM
They already have desalination plants? Why the heck did they just let them go to S)(@)?

Because it is a hell of alot more expensive than getting the water from the Colorado.

CYBERFX1024
06-27-2014, 08:21 PM
From NOAA...looking strong that there will be one this year:
Don't even get me started on Environmental impact...

I watch a ton of Philippine news stations and they are saying that it is a El Nino year. Because when it is one they get less rain and California gets a ton of it.

Measure Man
06-27-2014, 08:45 PM
They already have desalination plants? Why the heck did they just let them go to S)(@)?

Yes, apparently it is the most expensive water to get...which I why I said we need to get better at it.

BENDER56
06-29-2014, 06:00 PM
I watch a ton of Philippine news stations and they are saying that it is a El Nino year. Because when it is one they get less rain and California gets a ton of it.

Let's hope so for California's sake -- they sure need it.