National Pipeline for Water...

[SeaMac]

Hi HEF Members,

This is an important topic for me and should be for everyone. I wanted to get the word out but wasn't sure what forum to start the thread. Since this is General Industry Questions and the topic clearly pertains to our industry as a whole and most definitely asks a big question I hope I have chosen the proper Forum. If not, I rest confident that our esteemed Moderators will direct this thread to the correct location.


I have always pondered the question, why do we not have a National Pipeline System for Water? We have a national grid for electricity, have one's for natural gas and oil and communications too. We even have an Interstate Highway System, originally intended to move Troops and military equipment subsequent to WWII and during the Cold War as well and although lacking a Railroad System. Yet, with all our technology we have no way of moving excess water say in the Southeast to areas suffering drought conditions such as but not limited to Texas.

Geographically speaking most Northern states are at a higher elevation than those in the South therefore much of the system could rely on gravity as in sanitary sewer systems. Where mountains and so forth present an obstacle we have vastly improved Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM's) that could mitigate such an obstacle quickly and cost effectively. This Country needs jobs, what better way than to allocate funds for such a National Project. Think of all the employees, contractors and companies that would either have to be created or mobilized for such a cause. Not to mention the ecological side, water could be moved to areas where water is scarce and almost effortlessly.

American's were once known worldwide for our drive and ability to think outside the box and create solutions for problems, now we seem more prone to be part of the problem forsaking the solution altogether. I do not wish for this thread to turn political in the sense of argument but to inspire those who care -when all of us actually should- to make noise, call your representatives in D.C. and in your home state and ask why? Why do we not have such a system in place? We think OIL is the key to survival when in reality water IS the key, we can surely survive without oil and might be better off in the long run but water, water is what we're made of and without no amount of oil will matter when there's no water to drive to.

Think for a second, if Farmers have no water for the crops what happens? The price of food goes up AND so does the price of gas because we need to produce ethanol to blend with fuel. Not long ago Atlanta, arguably the most important metropolis in the South was threatened with a massive water shortage, can you imagine a city the size of Atlanta without water? Water shortages are becoming more prevalent and that should frighten everyone reading this thread but there is a viable solution. Odd it is that the Romans built aqueducts that still stand today and moved water hundreds of miles to where it was needed. We are able to do the same on an even greater scale if "We the People" start asking why and why not? One letter from each USA located member to each of his or her representative will be noticed for sure.

We can no longer rest comfortably that "our" government works for us unless "we" remind them. Again, this is NOT a Party specific interest -it doesn't matter what your party affiliation- it IS an interest for all of us. I think we all know that word of mouth spreads like wildfire and bad news travels nearly the speed of light. Well, we all have a need for H2O and when the local well runs dry we need an alternative and a National Pipeline is the only permanent solution. So, what have my fellow HEF members to say???

 

[Puppy]

I like it.

 

[Birken Vogt]

The question we need to ask is, is this something the government ought to be doing? Does the government have any authority to do it at all? Where do we derive the authority to tax the money away from some people and use it for some project that may or may not benefit said people or some other people? What do we do with those who cannot or will not pay? Throw them in jail? What do we do if they won't go? Hit them with a billy club? Shoot them?

The reason private businesses do better at this sort of thing is that they have to make it work or someone goes bust. If the government does it then nobody really cares about how well the project is going. Eventually it turns to worthless buraucracy and/or tyranny like everything else the government takes from the private sector.

If it is a good idea, take it to some investment people and see if you can scare up the money, and you will get rich in the process.

 

[Dualie]

I think we have those allready, i think we call them rivers...

 

[joispoi]

"Allocating funds" assumes that there are funds to allocate. The correct vocabulary would be "borrow funds".

I do not think that the gov't should be in control of the water supply. Every gov't run program that we know today is mismanaged and over budget. Why would you want the gov't (with all its bipartisan faults) to have control over the water supply? Isn't water expensive enough as it is?

From a national defense standpoint as well as strategic and environmental reasons, you do not want the entire country's water supply linked on a grid. Pollutants and chemical agents would all to easily circulate through the system. Installing a national water pipeline would probably bring about the end of terrorist bombing attempts- poisoning the national water grid would be easier and more devastating.

 

[stumpjumper83]

biggest factor prohibiting it is the scale at which it would be required to be effective and how to pay for it. A 48" pipe doesnt, even under pressure water a dozen illinois corn fields very well. Also If the rivers are overflowing their banks a 48" pipe isnt going to take enough water away to make a difference when a river that was 250 yards wide had just doubled in width. As some have already said we already have that, Its called river, they are right.

So we are talking laying what a 10' diameter pipe from where to where? The idea is facinating, but is best left at the coffee table.

 

[digger242j]

I think it's an interesting idea. It's actually something I was thinking about myself, when reading about the drought conditions earlier in the year.

I do not think that the gov't should be in control of the water supply. Every gov't run program that we know today is mismanaged and over budget. Why would you want the gov't (with all its bipartisan faults) to have control over the water supply? Isn't water expensive enough as it is?

Yeah. It should be in the hands of private industry, like everybody's other favorite liquid, gasoline. Oh, wait...

From a national defense standpoint as well as strategic and environmental reasons, you do not want the entire country's water supply linked on a grid. Pollutants and chemical agents would all to easily circulate through the system. Installing a national water pipeline would probably bring about the end of terrorist bombing attempts- poisoning the national water grid would be easier and more devastating.

I think what SeaMac was proposing wasn't necessarily drinking water, but for agricultural purposes. The rivers, as mentioned above, are just as subject to poisoning as a national, or even regional, irrigation grid would be.

biggest factor prohibiting it is the scale at which it would be required to be effective and how to pay for it. A 48" pipe doesnt, even under pressure water a dozen illinois corn fields very well. Also If the rivers are overflowing their banks a 48" pipe isnt going to take enough water away to make a difference when a river that was 250 yards wide had just doubled in width. As some have already said we already have that, Its called river, they are right.

So we are talking laying what a 10' diameter pipe from where to where?

I think stumpjumper hits the nail on the head here. Not just about a 10' main line, but on the simple logistics of distributing the product over thousands of square miles of land once you've shipped it from the wet region to the dry one. And it's also more of a contingency thing, not something that would be needed every year, making it harder to recover the cost.

The idea is facinating, but is best left at the coffee table.

Well, we have a pretty creative bunch of minds sitting around a virtual coffee table here. What would it take to make the idea workable?

 

[joispoi]

What would it take to make the idea workable?

In a word, MONEY.

Irrigation already costs a lot of money when the source of water is free. If there's a water bill added to all the other costs, crop prices would have to be higher to cover the expenses.

If it's just for watering crops, I think that there's very good potential for using reclaimed grey water and treated reclaimed sewer water. Water quality standards would have to be pretty strict for any crops destined for human consumption- think about the e-coli outbreaks from unpasteurized apple cider and various vegetable crops. Also, when moving water from one watershed to another, there would be the involvement of whichever local and federal alphabet agencies that oversee everything that has anything to do with water.

 

[OzDozer]

I believe one Meester Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi has already done this. It only cost him around US$33B - and he just happened to be sitting on a whole ocean of oil, to help pay fer it all.
Unfortunately, it seems he's not around to see the highly-doubtful long-term benefits of his little pet project.
Sucking all the water from the non-replenishing Nubian Sandstone aquifers, to try and grow some VERY expensive food, isn't going to rate very highly in water economics studies.

SeaMac - The principle sounds good - but when you take into account the 30% or 40% in water losses - and the necessary pumping required - it just doesn't rate, on a costs VS economics basis.
In addition, the water source has to have constant and substantial replenishment - to make up for water drawdown - and increasing drawdown in future years, with ever-increasing demand.

We have the same problem right here in Australia. The North of Australia has oceans of water from monsoonal rains, that largely goes to waste, via runoff into Northern seas.
Trying to get that water to the often-parched South of Australia, economically, has defeated most visionaries. The relatively cheap cost of desalination is still a hands-down winner.

The Great Man Made River Project - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-cDezY3cTY

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River

 

[CM1995]

In a word, MONEY.

Pretty much sums it up right there..:cool2

National debt - http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Yeah. It should be in the hands of private industry, like everybody's other favorite liquid, gasoline. Oh, wait...

With 16 Trillion in debt and growing, the country can't afford to buy drinking straws much less plan a national water system...:cool2

 

[grandpa]

With 16 Trillion in debt and growing, the country can't afford to buy drinking straws much less plan a national water system...:cool2[/QUOTE]

Lets just keep populating the planet until peole start falling off the edge of it.

 

[OzDozer]

Incidentally, we here in the West of Oz are a little ahead of the curve when it comes to distributing water over long distances. In the late 1890's, a proposal to build a 300 mile pipeline to send water that distance to the goldfields of Western Australia, from a dam on the Western edge of the State, was deemed utter madness and an exercise in futility.
The State needed the water in Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie to support the massive burgeoning gold industry that had recently rocketed to world news levels, because of the richness of the West Australian goldfields.

A fine young Irish engineer proposed a project consisting of a dam, a 300 mile, 30 inch pipeline, and 8 steam pumping stations, to supply the necessary water to the W.A. Goldfields. The project was supported and endorsed by the State Premier at that time.
The project went ahead, but under a huge amount of criticism, at the massive cost of $5,000,000 (in 1890's money), when the State population was only 148,000 people.
C.Y. O'Connor, unfortunately, committed suicide under the enormous pressure of criticism, shortly before the project was completed, thus depriving the world of a brilliant engineer.
His project still stands, and still operates every day - although it has been substantially upgraded, and the steam pumps are long gone.

The project was a total success - but only because of the vast amount of wealth produced from the West Australian Goldfields since that time. The water was mostly used for human consumption, and local salt water was used in the mining processes.
As a result, losses due to evaporation were very small, and the water wasn't used on a large scale to produce crops, that can be very high consumers of water.

It's said that the amount of gold extracted from the Goldfields of Western Australia, has repaid the build cost of the Goldfields Water Supply project, more than a hundredfold over a period of 110 years.

C. Y. O'Connor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._O'Connor

The Golden Pipeline - http://www.goldenpipeline.com.au/00/index.shtml

The Golden Pipeline Story - http://kalgoorlietourism.com/downloads/The_Golden_Pipeline.pdf

 

[boaterri]

Does the name William Mulholland strike a bell? He was the engineer behind robbing the water from western California and moving it to the L.A. basin using canals and syphons.

I suspect that the people with the water may have a lot to say about moving it to areas more arid to encourage those areas expansion and comfort. The farmers in Mulholland's case did not have the resourses to fight him (lawyers and money), the people in the North East do.

Rick

 

[Knocker of rock]

Does the name William Mulholland strike a bell? He was the engineer behind robbing the water from western California and moving it to the L.A. basin using canals and syphons

Just forget about it Jake, It's Chinatown

 

[Knocker of rock]

Even within the "United" States, there was a time when one state threatened to go to war with another over water. In 1935, Arizona Gov. Benjamin Moeur, a politician with a flair for the dramatic, dispatched his National Guard troops to the Colorado River to stop California from building the Parker Dam and "stealing" Arizona's water. A hundred Guardsmen with machine guns showed up at the dam site, and bewildered construction workers climbed down off their bulldozers and laid down their shovels. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court said that California was illegally exporting water without Arizona's permission. But then, Congress passed a law overturning the court decision and allowing California to go on "stealing."

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_10.html

And read Cadillac Desrt by the late Mark Reisner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkbebOhnCjA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert

 

[John C.]

We have a huge irrigation project in Washington State that converted huge tracks of desert into productive farm land. Most people think of Grand Coulee dam as just a power source but I think the larger benefit is the massive amount of crop land water that it provides. The federal project was negotiated in WWII to supply power for the creation of component parts of the atom bombs used on Japan. That should give you an idea of what it would take to get something like this done in this country.

The real problem with moving water into a national system is who's water are you going to take and who are you going to give it to. And if you are going to do that what are you going to give me in return for my right to the water? Finally, as the example of California's financial elite stealing the Colorado river shows, the water would be used to make rich people richer at the expense of those that couldn't afford to put up the fight.

The recent limiting factor on water in this country now is wild life. Salmon is the buzz word that increases the tension for every farmer from northern California right into Canada. Two power producing dams on the Elwa river system on the Olympic peninsula have been torn down in the name of fish habitat. One more was demolished down in the White Salmon area of the Columbia River basin. There have been and probably still are court cases climbing the ladder for final decision on the Snake River dams. Put salmon on the endangered species act and the question of who's water will become moot. The government would then make life very difficult for a lot of people.

 

[Knocker of rock]

You are right, Grand Coulee, along with Hoover, are both Bureau of Reclamation projects. The other dams are owned either by the BPA or local PUD's

 

[chroniekon]

As John C stated "The real problem with moving water into a national system is who's water are you going to take and who are you going to give it to. And if you are going to do that what are you going to give me in return for my right to the water? Finally, as the example of California's financial elite stealing the Colorado river shows, the water would be used to make rich people richer at the expense of those that couldn't afford to put up the fight. "

Google 'Aqueducts of California' and you will find a system of relocating large amounts of water from one region to another. At various times they have had their sights set on the Columbia River and even further north to the water of Alaska. Also google Lake Mead

 

[Phill]

its an interesting thought, but i think that a country liek the size of Canada or USA,it would not be a feasable feat. just the shear expense of the project to start with, and what about the maintance cost of thousands and thousands of mile of pipe. as well what happens if there is a disaster of some form up stream, would/could that comtaminate the whole country ?

 

[Knocker of rock]

I wish I could find that film I saw in 1981 about Walter Hinkels idea for a system of canals, dams and pipelines to transport a portion of the Yukon River down to the SW USA. Extensive pump systems were going to be needed, and the plan was to build nuclear power plants for the energy