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.
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.
IMO, transporting water all over the country is ridiculous and would be water mismanagement in itself. We need to quit messing with Mother Nature. Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas are all experiencing flooding right now. It's a natural course of events and is cyclical. Flood areas are fairly predictable. Maybe we need to quit building in flood plains and quit over building or over farming areas where water is not as readily available. Not sure about Oklahoma, but I know that parts of Texas and Arkansas and possibly other surrounding states have areas with lowering water tables that are of concern for the long term future. If water is going to be transported anywhere, maybe the citizens of those states should take care of their own needs before shipping water to an area that didn't manage its own resources properly.
Texas has also been in a drought the last 5-6 years and our lakes are just now starting to fill. Most of our West TX area are still in severe drought. We also have rules to share with Mexico and to let a certain amount flow into the Gulf.
The state of TX owns most of the water and I'm sure we'd be willing to sell whatever we have extra.
We will never have extra. You think California would ever send excess to another state ?
States like CA better start building desalination plants.
California is in a water crisis largely because the price of water cannot increase enough to influence consumption behaviour. This same low cost of water makes a pipeline uneconomic.
In a drought declared to be “historic,” in Irvine, the epicenter of rain-deprived Southern California, people pay $1.55 per hundred cubic feet of water, a little more than 748 gallons. In other words, $0.002—two-tenths of a cent—per gallon.
Yes, the price of water in this community has increased since last summer—it is up 7 cents from $1.48 per hundred cubic feet. Other California residents might pay three and four times this —but that’s still less than a penny a gallon.
At less than a penny a gallon, it does not make much economic sense to conserve water.
Consider dual-flush toilet mechanisms (which use half the water for liquid-waste flushes than solid-waste) can be installed in existing toilets and cost $20 to $40 apiece—a median cost of $90 for three mechanisms for a typical 3 bathroom home, which can be recouped over time with lower water bills.
The water savings is potentially 6,205 gallons a year, assuming five “half-flushes” (which cut water use in half) per person a day for a 2 person household. However, at $0.002 a gallon of water saved, the half-flushes would lower a water bill by $12.41 a year. It would take more than seven years to recover mechanisms’ cost. For a 4 person household, the payback is much shorter - but in any case less than going to the movies & buying popcorn.
To save even more water, imagine installing 3 brand new very water-stingy toilets. New, water-saving toilets use 1.28 gallons per flush instead of the 3.5 gallons that the installed base of toilets in Southern California typically use. Three high-quality (but not top-of-the-line) water-saving toilets cost $2,254 installed. A family of 2 could save 8,103 gallons of water a year, but only $16.21 on the annual water bill. It would take more than 138 years to recover the cost of the new toilets, not including interest costs.
By contrast, if tap water were raised to the price of water sold by the gallon at the local Costco—six one-gallon bottles for $3.89 a pack—the price of our water would be 65 cents a gallon. The cost of the three toilets could be recovered through lower water bills in a little more than five months.
Clearly, going from less than a penny a gallon to 65 cents a gallon is not feasible. But true conservation will not occur otherwise.
I think water management would be a good thing. Build treatment plants to handle flood water and sell that water to drought starved areas. Why not give the the whole country more of a chance to flourish?
The issue is people and industry that located in desert climates who completely ignore their environment, try to use water like it was a rain forest, then are shocked when environment reminds them of their stupidity.
It's silly to pump water 1000s of miles so people can have an English garden and play golf in the desert.
It's silly to waste water period. If it takes water to make a place liveable, water that would otherwise be wasted could be of good use and the desert golfers would probably not mind the cost so much.
Plus the industry that would develop from using flood water would create jobs. WIN WIN
One thing to keep in mind, Very little <3% of In House Water is lost, 97% of the water is recovered and re-used, via the sewer systems, or (Septic System also return the water to the ground table). Sewers plants clean the water, release it back into a river/stream for use by down stream water systems.
1% of the in home loss is evaporation from cloths Dryers, Steam from Dishwashers, Steam from Cooking.
2% is "Lost" to leaks in the pipes bring the water to the home, and leaks in the pipes taking from the home, This loss is lost into the water table that over time will flow to the rivers/streams.
Plus the industry that would develop from using flood water would create jobs. WIN WIN
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.
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.
