[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

It went out with the rain dance....

Wonder if we can get the village females to do a rain dance when needed.

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by nomo50

it would be one thing if new orleans was at sea level, but it is not. Look at a topographical map of that region. New orleans sits in a bowl that is below the levels of both the gulf and lake pontchartrain. Build all the levees you want, sooner or later mother nature will show them who's the boss.

say whattttt !!!!

[Rodneysblue]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

It seems to every year at this time we’re witnessing severe drought and devastating fires in California while torrential rains and flooding in the southern mid west. I see that we can move billions of gallons of oil from Canada to Texas and I wonder why we can’t move billions of gallons of water from flooded areas to drought impacted areas. I used to think this was absurd but the I thought about the oil pipeline. I’d bet that engineers exist that could do this.

I said that years ago when discussing it with friends. They looked at me and laughed.

[crash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

It is a well proven fact that engineers can move water. The Army of Corps of Engineers even stopped the water from flowing over Niagra Falls in 1969.

But, a gallon of oil costs about $2.40 as compared to a gallon of water at $0.002. So, crude oil is worth about 1200 times as much as raw water. I think that may have something to do with why they don't spend money to move water.

Have you bought bottled water lately more expensive than gas. They can move the water but can they do it less than desalination?

[TOMTOFVIL]

Cities and towns are approximately 10% of the water consumption in CA.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by crash

Have you bought bottled water lately more expensive than gas. They can move the water but can they do it less than desalination?

I don't know but that doesn't solve the flooding problems.

As far as trying to move all this water after a flood has happened I would think that a system could be set up to start catching rain water as soon as it starts raining. Meteorologists have a pretty good idea when there is going to be a little rain or when there will be enough rain to cause devastation. A rain water capture system should be able to be turned off and on.

Of course this would be a huge project and would cost possibly trillions of dollars. But IMHO, our government wastes so much money on things that really don't help anyone. And I agree that it would never get done because of the politics involved.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I don't know but that doesn't solve the flooding problems.

As far as trying to move all this water after a flood has happened I would think that a system could be set up to start catching rain water as soon as it starts raining. Meteorologists have a pretty good idea when there is going to be a little rain or when there will be enough rain to cause devastation. A rain water capture system should be able to be turned off and on.

Of course this would be a huge project and would cost possibly trillions of dollars. But IMHO, our government wastes so much money on things that really don't help anyone. And I agree that it would never get done because of the politics involved.

What you are describing is exactly what the Army Corps of Engineers has been doing for decades along our major rivers. They have a coordinated system of lakes and dams constructed along the river, and they monitor and control the water levels of the lakes to prevent flooding downstream. The dams have large valves that can be opened and closed to establish an exact and safe water level in the lakes to minimize flooding of developed areas.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

I lived in Santa Barbara in my teens and back then they had water problems: their source of drinking water was on the other side of the mountains and it would run low. So the city of SB built a desalination plant which cost them $30m. For the next 20-30 years, the plant was more off than on. Then in 2017 after the plant was dormant for years, the city paid $70M to reactivate the plant and the county voted to run the plant consistently. So there are ways to provide water in California but they choose not too. California has also done very little in forest management because of the activist groups for decades. IMO, California’s lack of infrastructure maintenance (remember the dam that eroded/broke a couple years ago was caused by lack of maintenance, and the state knew this could happen for 10 years) has contributed to what are have been seeing these last few years. I agree the drought hasn’t helped, but Californian’s still water their lawns and wash their cars

It was the Oroville Dam crisis. Excessive weather event (rain) caused dam to overflow and spillway failed do excess water

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

It is a well proven fact that engineers can move water. The Army of Corps of Engineers even stopped the water from flowing over Niagra Falls in 1969.

But, a gallon of oil costs about $2.40 as compared to a gallon of water at $0.002. So, crude oil is worth about 1200 times as much as raw water. I think that may have something to do with why they don't spend money to move water.

When lake mead and all western lakes go dry water will be more valuable than oil. That could happen in few more years. Colorado had plans to divert north platte River for Denver water shed, but Nebraska own’s the water rights and said hello no.

Plus the desert states are wasting water growing grass in desert. Until somebody says this is stoopid the lakes still fall.
For water to be diverted from northern Missouri River and other tributaries federal government will have to use eminent domain to eliminate all the water rights across states. Plus not easy to pump water over the continental divide.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

A lot of people seem to be focusing on the fires in California. I'd also like to solve the problem of the floods in the middle and southern part of the country that seem to happen every year.

Like I said, it's not a lack of water problem, it's a distribution problem. We, as a nation, really should be able to deal with these problems that occur year after year. It's really a shame that we don't.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

A lot of people seem to be focusing on the fires in California. I'd also like to solve the problem of the floods in the middle and southern part of the country that seem to happen every year.

Like I said, it's not a lack of water problem, it's a distribution problem. We, as a nation, really should be able to deal with these problems that occur year after year. It's really a shame that we don't.

See Post No. 37. The system of lakes and dams constructed along the major rivers at a cost of billions of dollars are preventing a lot of flooding. It is impossible to prevent all flooding but they do very effective job. The Corps of Engineers will construct a concrete dam on a river, and create a lake behind it, and then the dam operators will monitor the rainfall and control the water level of the lake to ensure that the developed property downstream of the dam does not get flooded. The dams have locks that allow boats and barges to pass through the dam without bottoming out. Also, the lake is used as a recreational amenity for people to do boating and camping. The Federal Government has invested trillions of dollars to prevent flooding throughout the country.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

whatever happened to cloud seeding ?

They didn’t sprout.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

A lot of people seem to be focusing on the fires in California. I'd also like to solve the problem of the floods in the middle and southern part of the country that seem to happen every year.

Like I said, it's not a lack of water problem, it's a distribution problem. We, as a nation, really should be able to deal with these problems that occur year after year. It's really a shame that we don't.

I am pretty sure the corp of engineers is working on that, and making progress. It is a massive job. But, I recall floods 2 or 3 decades ago in the center of the country being MUCH worse and a lot more people evacuated and dying for weeks or longer.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

It would be one thing if New Orleans was AT sea level, but it is not. Look at a topographical map of that region. New Orleans sits in a bowl that is below the levels of both the Gulf and Lake Pontchartrain. Build all the levees you want, sooner or later Mother Nature will show them who's the boss.

It's been working in Holland for a Long time. And Miami is now building dikes and pumping stations to try to save itself. South Florida is about to experience a major reducing in very expensive land. And insurance companies are beginning to balk at insuring anything along the coast. Trillions of dollars of land are going to lose most or all of its value over the next few decades. The economic impact will be not so pretty good. The Pentagon has been including that in it international security briefings for decades. But, what do they know.

[mikeycereal]

Bottled water more expensive than gas? Naw, not at a buck for a 5 gallon refill. Love me some bottled water ever since I worked for a BW company in the 80s. Could taste the difference right away, a lot better. We all knew it was from the tap, but carbon filtered and reverse osmosis. We never tried to pass it as spring water when it was not from a spring. Can't drink tap unless filtered but again depends on taste. But I usually can taste the difference straight from tap, it's gross. Like there's dust in it or a very slight pipe taste. If you can drink the ice water they give you in restaurants... ugh, well that's just bad tasting water. I bring my own small bottle and leave their glass untouched. Pretty much every restaurant I used to sample sip their water, and it didn't pass. I think the ice ruins it too. Some ice just sits around absorbs bacteria and other substances then when added to the water... yuck. No ice for me in my drinks.

Those who drink the tap are just used to it. So they wonder why some prefer not to. Because we don't drink it then when we do it's noticeable. I prefer the taste of reg purified bottled water. I can't even do the water with the splash of fruit or whatever vitamins in it. Just throws it off, tastes slightly bitter, and I can also detect artificial sweetener aftertaste in all drinks that have it. So bottled water for me always.