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.
Atlanta and East Texas are well watered parts of the country. Unlike the Midwest and Northeast where it rains twice a week all year, though, they can have prolonged dry periods, sometimes even droughts. But I don't see that as an obstacle to their growth.
Because some states (entire ones) are arrid (not necessarily TX).
It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called water issue keeps being chanted like some fear mongering slogan. Did it never occur to these people that there's such a thing as pipelines, and desalination technology which is bound to only get better and cheaper as time goes on. We sent a man to Mars. Transporting water does not exactly entail NASA technology. One good pipeline to the Pacific would solve any/all so-called Water issues.
With all the open space and favorable weather, not to mention business climate, I see the South Western boom continuing well into the next century and beyond.
It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called water issue keeps being chanted like some fear mongering slogan. Did it never occur to these people that there's such a thing as pipelines, and desalination technology which is bound to only get better and cheaper as time goes on. We sent a man to Mars. Transporting water does not exactly entail NASA technology. One good pipeline to the Pacific would solve any/all so-called Water issues.
With all the open space and favorable weather, not to mention business climate, I see the South Western boom continuing well into the next century and beyond.
I think you underestimate how expensive building a "simple" pipeline costs or perhaps you are just a bit young (or too young). ALL that stuff, although plausible, is financially infeasible for the most part. That is, unless you want to increase your taxes dramatically (and I know nobody does). It's not a question of technology but feasibility. We COULD colonate the moon but it's so cost-prohibitive that it's completely unrealistic. We could also all build domes around our metros and have a greenhouse effect -- with 365 days of warm, humid weather. Why don't we then?
It's about money....money, and better cheaper available options (areas that DON'T need to build pipelines or desalinate water to survive, in this example).
I think you underestimate how expensive building a "simple" pipeline costs or perhaps you are just a bit young (or too young). ALL that stuff, although plausible, is financially infeasible for the most part. That is, unless you want to increase your taxes dramatically (and I know nobody does). It's not a question of technology but feasibility. We COULD colonate the moon but it's so cost-prohibitive that it's completely unrealistic. We could also all build domes around our metros and have a greenhouse effect -- with 365 days of warm, humid weather. Why don't we then?
It's about money....money, and better cheaper available options (areas that DON'T need to build pipelines or desalinate water to survive, in this example).
A pipeline is no more expensive than any other infrastructure project. Also, if it was infeasible, you wouldn't be seeing/hearing about the untold number of pipelines already in place for oil throughout the country. The Keystone pipeline as proposed will run from Canada to the Gulf. A pipeline from Arizona to the Pacific would be a cake walk in comparison.
As for associated costs/taxes. Well, you're forgetting about the offsetting advantages to the Midwest such as the absence of snow removal budgets and associated wear and tear that the Snow Belt regions constantly deal with. Because the Southwest doesn’t get the snow the Midwest and Northeast get, the roads last longer. Because the roads last longer, the infrastructure/maintenance costs are much lower. Needless to say, there are enough advantages to more than offset the costs of such pipelines.
It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called water issue keeps being chanted like some fear mongering slogan. Did it never occur to these people that there's such a thing as pipelines, and desalination technology which is bound to only get better and cheaper as time goes on. We sent a man to Mars. Transporting water does not exactly entail NASA technology. One good pipeline to the Pacific would solve any/all so-called Water issues.
With all the open space and favorable weather, not to mention business climate, I see the South Western boom continuing well into the next century and beyond.
From an engineering standpoint, getting a pipeline over the Rockies is certainly easily do-able, but also very expensive - in terms of pumping water up and over, it would be extremely expensive. And the Great Lakes states are well aware of the resource - the world's largest bodies of fresh water - that they control, and they are tightening their control over those lakes. They are also aware of the water wars that took place in Southern CA in the early 20th century, and the corruption and blatant theft that went along with those wars. This means they ain't giving it away for free.
All of which means that the places most prone to extended, severe drought - the Southwest, and the High Plains immediately downwind of the Front Range - will get their water, and as much as they want, but they will pay through the nose for it. The Oglalla aquifer, which underlies a good bit of the High Plains is still sizable, but is enormously reduced from what it once was, and the Dust Bowl proved that the High Plains are a very delicate ecosystem that is very prone to desertification if land isn't VERY well managed. This is one of THE major reasons why the many small towns that dotted the high plains from Texas all the way north into Saskatchewan have been losing population since the 1930s, some having become ghost towns: there are counties in South Dakota that have had to be merged together (at least a half dozen since the 1880s; the most recent in the early 1980s), and several in Nebraska whose populations have fallen far below 1000, as of the last couple censuses.
The Southeast and East Coast are also prone to extreme droughts - tree ring data suggests that a drought in the mid-1500s was something on the order of a thousand-year magnitude, affecting an area from present-day Georgia to eastern Pennsylvania, and may have likely been responsible for the complete extermination of the first attempt at English settlement in the colonies (in Eastern N.C. - the so-called "Lost Colony"), but far less so than the High Plains, southern Plains, or Southwest.
A pipeline is no more expensive than any other infrastructure project. Also, if it was infeasible, you wouldn't be seeing/hearing about the untold number of pipelines already in place for oil throughout the country. The Keystone pipeline as proposed will run from Canada to the Gulf. A pipeline from Arizona to the Pacific would be a cake walk in comparison.
As for associated costs/taxes. Well, you're forgetting about the offsetting advantages to the Midwest such as the absence of snow removal budgets and associated wear and tear that the Snow Belt regions constantly deal with. Because the Southwest doesn’t get the snow the Midwest and Northeast get, the roads last longer. Because the roads last longer, the infrastructure/maintenance costs are much lower. Needless to say, there are enough advantages to more than offset the costs of such pipelines.
Snow removal is actually not that expensive. I used to own a unit in an apartment complex and would see their budget. The total winter costs (salt, snow removal, etc.) were about half the summer landscaping costs.
Maintenance of roads (a taxpayer expense) is more expensive in the snow belt, but it's not quite the budget breaking cost that you make it out to be.
A pipeline is no more expensive than any other infrastructure project. Also, if it was infeasible, you wouldn't be seeing/hearing about the untold number of pipelines already in place for oil throughout the country. The Keystone pipeline as proposed will run from Canada to the Gulf. A pipeline from Arizona to the Pacific would be a cake walk in comparison.
As for associated costs/taxes. Well, you're forgetting about the offsetting advantages to the Midwest such as the absence of snow removal budgets and associated wear and tear that the Snow Belt regions constantly deal with. Because the Southwest doesn’t get the snow the Midwest and Northeast get, the roads last longer. Because the roads last longer, the infrastructure/maintenance costs are much lower. Needless to say, there are enough advantages to more than offset the costs of such pipelines.
A gallon of water is what, pennies? How about a gallon of gasoline? That should answer your first rebuttle about the cost of building pipelines. There is no room for profit for anybody to pipe it. Hell, there wasn't a profit in ND for its shale oil until somebody learned how to extract it cheaper....and the margins are slimmer than in places where it's closer to the surface and "light sweet crude".
I simply don't think you are comprehending how expensive it is to move that much mass from one point on Earth to another point on Earth, and road salts and repairs pale in comparison. I may be wrong, but then again, you just don't see a ton of long-range water pipelines in this country for a reason. Even if you could, you'd have to get the permission from the state giving that water, and most of the Midwest likely isn't going to give you any (at least not from the Great Lakes).
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 08-16-2012 at 01:53 PM..
A gallon of water is what, pennies? How about a gallon of gasoline? That should answer your first rebuttle about the cost of building pipelines. There is no room for profit for anybody to pipe it. Hell, there wasn't a profit in ND for its shale oil until somebody learned how to extract it cheaper....and the margins are slimmer than in places where it's closer to the surface and "light sweet crude".
I simply don't think you are comprehending how expensive it is to move that much mass from one point on Earth to another point on Earth, and road salts and repairs pale in comparison. I may be wrong, but then again, you just don't see a ton of long-range water pipelines in this country for a reason. Even if you could, you'd have to get the permission from the state giving that water, and most of the Midwest likely isn't going to give you any (at least not from the Great Lakes).
Much of the talk about pipelines for water is from a proposed desalinization plant on the Sea of Cortez, about a 3 hr drive from PHX, maybe 200 miles. The state of Sonora would benefit from the revenue, which it needs badly.
I think if you live in an area that frequently has watering restrictions, has conserving water ads on television, and encourages lawns that aren't made of grass, you are potentially already facing a problem.
Raleigh, NC is growing like crazy. Many people believe that in the years to come Raleigh is going to be the next Atlanta. A major southern US city. Many professionals are moving to the area and Raleigh have some of the best home prices and upscale stores are coming too. Raleigh is a great choice!
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.
