bluetopper
Member
I really don't think y'all realize how hard it is to move that much water that far. And as for doing away with flooding...how much water CAN you move...not nearly enough to prevent even flooding I have seen near the Mississippi. We are talking trillions of gallons. Where would you put it after you got it to a destination? And with the incompetence of the waterboards and the people that work for them...how much loss to evaporation in California?? I was talking to the irrigation district "engineer" locally and he said they had a pipe broken that was squirting water at least 50 ft. I remarked...well that's hydraulics for you. He looked at me like I had 2 heads...said..hydraulics?? I'm talking about water. Seriously especially as a way to stop flooding...I doubt it can be done...and to be honest...to transfer water to a place that doesn't have a clue about responsible use of the water they have would not only be ridiculous but not a responsible use of the taxpayers monies...oh and don't forget..taking the floodwaters at the Mississippi's terminus...means you've already had millions...no billions of gallons or more of water flood the upper reaches of that river. or any other flooded river systems. Most floods ARE localized you know...at least in the original state. This isn't a political discussion...Just a common sense look at moving all the water y'all are talking of. And...even though it doesn't seem like it would be a problem, doing away with flooding would also have damaging ecological concerns
Pumping enough water out of the Mississippi to prevent flooding is impossible. It just is a viable source of the water "needs" of the western US.
Last edited: