Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason they call it flood water is because there is no place to hold and store the water during heavy rains.
Where do you purpose all this extra water is stored for processing to be put in a pipeline?
It also is not wasted. At least in the south, the water ends up going into the Gulf and helps the wildlife in the marshes and reefs.
Our Texas laws even says we must release a % to the Gulf. It helps keep the salt levels down.
You must be a damn engineer! You are right, it is a completely unworkable problem and we should continue pay increased insurance premiums to mitigate the 4 billion dollars every year we spend for flood damage as it makes much more sense than building a network to manage it.
Hey, its only 40 billion dollars every decade you do not mind paying your share of that... right?
And never mind that third world countries like India can build these systems and use them to develop agriculture to feed their massive population, it would be far too expensive for the US to do the same.
It is a much better investment to kill millions of people worldwide because of politically motivated lies and agendas. Look how much better off the Middle East is today from our involvement. It is a virtual paradise. You should take a vacation there! Or perhaps visit the 4.5 million grave sites in South East Asia we paid for in order to make the world a better place.
You think I don't know what my own damn water bill is ? You obviously do not have a clue what you are talking about. With 80% plus of California's water going to agriculture (which is exported outside the State), the conservation of a small percentage of the remaining less than 20% does not amount to a hill of beans, and it certainly is not going to help this. Record rainfall floods parts of U.S., killing four - MarketWatch
Only in modern America would people be complaining that water is being spent on food and not home use
Maybe people are just realizing that our model of compressing millions of people into a tiny region is an ecologically stupid idea....
It seems to me the water comes from atmospheric sources, mostly comes from vegetative transpiration and ocean/lake evaporation. Atmospheric sources are pretty dynamic and unpredictable.
Water is the ultimate renewable resource. It is continually recycled and the amount we have never changes, it is just some places have too much, and other places do not have enough.
The lack of logic and education on this subject is staggering. To read this thread, you would think that Americans are the least educated people on earth. Or at least the most illogical.
The lack of logic and education on this subject is staggering. To read this thread, you would think that Americans are the least educated people on earth. Or at least the most illogical.
Only in modern America would people be complaining that water is being spent on food and not home use
Maybe people are just realizing that our model of compressing millions of people into a tiny region is an ecologically stupid idea....
So exactly why should the residents of California subsidize cheap food for the rest of the country by paying more for their personal survival? Especially when the rest of the country is unwilling to share their "flood water" with the State that feeds them?
Perhaps we just need a political movement to make agriculture pay more for water, which will drive many farmers out of business and drive up food prices. Californians can afford more, just as we can afford to pay a $1 more for gasoline. The rest of the country can just deal with it.
... Should the federal government (meaning all taxpayers nationwide) be responsible for paying for CA residents irresponsible actions?
There are two issues:
1) What does California do with its own water?
2) How does the Federal Government allocate water between states?
The Federal Government (Bureau of Reclamation) must be involved in the latter.
Let's take the Colorado River, for example. Seven U.S. states, two Mexican states, and several semi-autonomous Indian Nations (reservations) draw water from the Colorado River. The Colorado is now considered among the most controlled and litigated rivers in the world, with every drop of its water fully allocated.
Actually, more than 100% of every drop is allocated, and that is the problem.
The allocation was established in 1922. The allocation of "pie slices" of the total water was allocated when populations were very different than they are today. For example, in 1922 Las Vegas was barely a whistle-stop whereas now greater Las Vegas' population is pushing 1 Million. The allocation of water to Southern Nevada has not changed from its historic 4% tiny slice of the pie despite the change in population.
Moreover, 1.5 million acre-feet of water are guaranteed to Mexico regardless of the snowmelt in the Rockies based on a 1944 treaty. (Apparently, Mexico's payment to the US for the US' water is done via illegal immigrants.)
Only the Federal Government can lead a reallocation of water to reflect modern usage patterns.
Now for a few inconvenient facts. 80% of California's water goes for agriculture. Another fact is that California feeds the rest of the nation.
This issue is not about how long of a shower people take, it is about what does it take to grow the nations food supply. I hear idiots complaining about sharing water, how about if the price of your produce triples to pay for the desalinization you think we should build. Perhaps you would like to pay $8.00 for that head of lettuce and return to the days when only the wealthy could afford to eat citrus fruit. That bottle of California wine you enjoy at such cheap prices will also be at thing of the past without cheap water.
Even if every Californian saved 25% of the water they currently use which is totally unrealistic given they have been in conservation mode for decades, it would still only amount to 5% of California's total water use.
I suspect there will come a day in the not so distant future when California will no longer be able to provide anywhere near as much of the food supply as they do currently. I can't think of a single thing grown in CA that can't be grown somewhere else in the world, quite a bit of it right here in the USA. CA wines are already being partially replaced on the menus in many places by wines from the PNW, Australia, South America and other places. With globalization, it's already becoming much cheaper to ship food from other countries and as the demand goes up, the cost to ship from other countries will get even cheaper. Citrus won't be a food strictly for the rich; it will still be affordable - it just won't come from CA anymore. It will come from FL, Mexico, South America or someplace else.
So exactly why should the residents of California subsidize cheap food for the rest of the country by paying more for their personal survival? Especially when the rest of the country is unwilling to share their "flood water" with the State that feeds them?
Perhaps we just need a political movement to make agriculture pay more for water, which will drive many farmers out of business and drive up food prices. Californians can afford more, just as we can afford to pay a $1 more for gasoline. The rest of the country can just deal with it.
You know you can just move right? I pay 15 dollars a month for water in Florida and have a pool and a nice green lawn. California has always been arid, why 40 million of you insist on living there, then complain about the prices of commodities being inflated due to 40 million people living there, is beyond me...
Texas and Oklahoma are suffering floods and California is suffering drought. Both of these conditions could be mitigated by the proper infrastructure to manage the nations water supply.
Private industry has no problems building pipelines to transport oil and gas across entire cotenants, but our Federal government cannot build a water grid that would benefit the country in immeasurable ways.
Water is the most basic and most necessary element to facilitate development and industry. A national water grid could be an asset that would pay dividends going forward and increase prosperity.
It could also be accomplished with a fraction of what we spend in foreign wars making enemies worldwide.
No way will Texas and Oklahoma give up their water rights without a huge fight. You seem to believe that the unsual rainfall in the plains states is going to continue on indefinately - not so. Eventually, the normal weather patterns will begin to reassert themselves, and once again West Texas, Oklahoma and the other plains states will go back to languishing under the spell of drought. Plus, we have a government that refuses to shell out so much as a dollar to help fix our badly deteriorated national infrastructure. Do you really think they'll spend the tremendous amount of money needed to build your new water project over the dead bodies of everyone in Texas? Somehow, I doubt it.
Those of us living beyond the 100th meridian are now suffering from man's hubris in thinking that nature can be tamed to do our will plus the onset of the extreme drought in many Western States. Rather than stealing water from Oklahoma (which is already suffering along with the other plains regions from the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer), we of the West need to enact sane water use policies. For example, in the OP's home state of California, Big Ag continues along unconcerned, growing massive quanties of rice nd almonds - heavily water intensive crops which have no business being cultivated in the arid West - especially now. The great cities of the American West have so far been every bit as irresponsible as Big Ag. When I check in on the Arizona forum, they're still talking about building swimming pools in Phoenix; the Las Vegas forum seems to think that someone will wave a magic wand over the steadily falling water reserves in Lake Mead and allow Las Vegas to go on with its wildly spendthrift ways in regard to water use.
In the Colorado forum, people in Denver are aghast at the very thought of giving up their bluegrass lawns and putting in xeriscaping instead. Colorado farmers are no better - most continue to grow water intensive crops like hay and alfalfa which is then fed to cattle. In my part of Colorado farmers grow huge fields of alfalfa, all irrigated by water from the Dolores River and stored in a reservoir that is now at 37% of normal. How long can this last? Farmers further north in the county grow a great drylands crop - pinto beans which need less water and are much more hardy at our high altitude, arid climate.
As water becomes ever more scarce in the thirsty West, the future belongs to the lowly pinto and crops like it. The states which lie to the east of us have their own problems. They will not come charging in like the calvary to save us from ourselves. Only we who live here can do that.
1) What does California do with its own water?
2) How does the Federal Government allocate water between states?
The Federal Government (Bureau of Reclamation) must be involved in the latter.
Let's take the Colorado River, for example. Seven U.S. states, two Mexican states, and several semi-autonomous Indian Nations (reservations) draw water from the Colorado River. The Colorado is now considered among the most controlled and litigated rivers in the world, with every drop of its water fully allocated.
Actually, more than 100% of every drop is allocated, and that is the problem.
The allocation was established in 1922. The allocation of "pie slices" of the total water was allocated when populations were very different than they are today. For example, in 1922 Las Vegas was barely a whistle-stop whereas now greater Las Vegas' population is pushing 1 Million. The allocation of water to Southern Nevada has not changed from its historic 4% tiny slice of the pie despite the change in population.
Moreover, 1.5 million acre-feet of water are guaranteed to Mexico regardless of the snowmelt in the Rockies based on a 1944 treaty. (Apparently, Mexico's payment to the US for the US' water is done via illegal immigrants.)
Only the Federal Government can lead a reallocation of water to reflect modern usage patterns.
I don't disagree with anything you said, though I do not know much about the particulars. However I will say that the OP's half baked idea of taking water from flood states to give it to (even at a cost) CA and others would cost untold amounts of money to create such an " water infrastructure". Now if Cher, Streisand, and other liberal CA hypocrites want to pay for it, that would be a different story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
