White knuckle time

muttonbuster

Senior Stratmaster
Nov 14, 2020
1,030
República de Cantaloupia
Some of that stuff rolled through here earlier. Not good. A little bit of rain, and a lot of lightning. It's similar to the subtropical moisture that kicked off all the fires last summer. Tomorrow may just be the most critical day in this summer's fire season as far as nipping the new stuff in the bud.
 

thomquietwolf

Dr. Stratster
Gold Supporting Member
Silver Member
Dec 2, 2010
20,350
Peardale CA
Big Bluster:
Rockin
N
Booming
N
Crashing
N
Complaining
9:00 last night till now.....
Minimal rain(much like an internet bully)

As far as i can tell
No significant fire
I'm such a coward
 

StratUp

Most Honored Senior Member
Sep 5, 2020
8,044
Altered States
The oil pipelines need to be converted to distribute water around the country.

I'd kind of favor new pipes for water, if you don't mind. Just my taste buds and innards.

Meanwhile,there's actually a lot of that done - although not as much as (for example) gasoline distribution and not "cross-region". One key difference is that oil is highly profitable, water much less so. Another is that oil is privately managed, water publicly as a resource, so it would have to be governmental money at the state or federal level to make it happen. Whether Maine wants to pay for a mega-billion dollar pipeline to send water to Arizona from Washington state... well, you see the challenge.

Out west, the big southwestern states already use pipe and/or aquaducts to get water from the Colorado River. Unfortunately, the dams/lakes that supply that water are at record lows. Just keeping up current levels of supply is a challenge now. Shortages and rationing are impacting farms and ranches across the region.

There's probably enough water in the Great Lakes, but getting that to the Southwest and West is the problem about governmentation cited above. But, it could be done. Still, until it reaches more of a crisis level, I doubt we'll see the motivation to get it done. Seems to be the rule that we can't do "big" things until the spit hits the fan. Or doesn't, because you haven't had a drink of water in so long that you can't spit.
 

Baelzebub

Dr. Stratster
Nov 1, 2019
14,744
State of Disbelief
Exactly. I'm not certain how easy a conversion would be but if we can build pipelines for transporting oil and natural gas we can sure as hell build them to transport water.

It's already been done. There is a massive ditch that runs the length of CA's Central Valley which carries water from Yosemite and the Sierras in the north to the Grapevine where huge pumps pump the water up over 7,000 feet over the Tejon Pass into the San Fernando Valley. LA would revert to a desert without it....albeit an asphalt and cement covered one.

Farmers in the Central Valley for years have been siphoning off water and diverting it from SF Bay, which along with Silicon Valley's (only the latest to do so, the military has been doing it for decades) dumping of toxics has pretty much destroyed the ecology and made the fish inedible.

CA's history is intimately entwined in the fights over water.

Other massive projects have drained the Colorado River to feed the desert states to the south.

The problem now, is that the droughts are drying up the sources in the north, so, even with a pipeline, there's nothing to transport. Reservoirs are at historic lows and even the future of hydroelectric power is in question.

You can't just move massive projects like the Hoover Dam to where the water is, and those projects took decades to get built even when the approval processes were much quicker.

Not to mention that the graying of the country is leaving large construction firms with a smaller and smaller pool of skilled workers to draw from at a time when we desperately need them to do the work of doing the deferred maintenance on, and rebuilding, infrastructure.

I'm not sure that we haven't finally reached the tipping point where we are unable to grow our way out of problems like these. But I guess time will tell.
 

Scott Baxendale

Most Honored Senior Member
Gold Supporting Member
May 20, 2020
5,552
Sante Fe, NM
I'd kind of favor new pipes for water, if you don't mind. Just my taste buds and innards.

Meanwhile,there's actually a lot of that done - although not as much as (for example) gasoline distribution and not "cross-region". One key difference is that oil is highly profitable, water much less so. Another is that oil is privately managed, water publicly as a resource, so it would have to be governmental money at the state or federal level to make it happen. Whether Maine wants to pay for a mega-billion dollar pipeline to send water to Arizona from Washington state... well, you see the challenge.

Out west, the big southwestern states already use pipe and/or aquaducts to get water from the Colorado River. Unfortunately, the dams/lakes that supply that water are at record lows. Just keeping up current levels of supply is a challenge now. Shortages and rationing are impacting farms and ranches across the region.

There's probably enough water in the Great Lakes, but getting that to the Southwest and West is the problem about governmentation cited above. But, it could be done. Still, until it reaches more of a crisis level, I doubt we'll see the motivation to get it done. Seems to be the rule that we can't do "big" things until the spit hits the fan. Or doesn't, because you haven't had a drink of water in so long that you can't spit.
I’m not talking about sending water from the Great Lakes to California. I’m talking about a pipeline that takes water from heavy flooded areas and redistributes it to the dry areas. The oil pipelines need to be mostly shut down anyway and that basic infrastructure could be repurposed to distribute the water even if you have to replace the pipe. Like I also said you have to keep the greed mongers out of it, so indeed it would have to be a governmental program similar to the interstate highway supystem. Colorado is now in trouble, not because of Coloradans using all the water, but because of those taking it in California. California has other problems in how they give their water to almond farmers for their profit instead of to the people who need it more.
 

Scott Baxendale

Most Honored Senior Member
Gold Supporting Member
May 20, 2020
5,552
Sante Fe, NM
It's already been done. There is a massive ditch that runs the length of CA's Central Valley which carries water from Yosemite and the Sierras in the north to the Grapevine where huge pumps pump the water up over 7,000 feet over the Tejon Pass into the San Fernando Valley. LA would revert to a desert without it....albeit an asphalt and cement covered one.

Farmers in the Central Valley for years have been siphoning off water and diverting it from SF Bay, which along with Silicon Valley's (only the latest to do so, the military has been doing it for decades) dumping of toxics has pretty much destroyed the ecology and made the fish inedible.

CA's history is intimately entwined in the fights over water.

Other massive projects have drained the Colorado River to feed the desert states to the south.

The problem now, is that the droughts are drying up the sources in the north, so, even with a pipeline, there's nothing to transport. Reservoirs are at historic lows and even the future of hydroelectric power is in question.

You can't just move massive projects like the Hoover Dam to where the water is, and those projects took decades to get built even when the approval processes were much quicker.

Not to mention that the graying of the country is leaving large construction firms with a smaller and smaller pool of skilled workers to draw from at a time when we desperately need them to do the work of doing the deferred maintenance on, and rebuilding, infrastructure.

I'm not sure that we haven't finally reached the tipping point where we are unable to grow our way out of problems like these. But I guess time will tell.
It obviously hasn’t been done enough to solve the problem. A ditch in California to distribute water doesn’t address near enough of the need.
 

crankmeister

Most Honored Senior Member
Jul 9, 2020
5,994
Republic of Gilead
We got a nice bit of rain in the eastern Sierras yesterday afternoon and in the wee hours this morning.

Definitely came with some big thunder, but luckily nothing significant came of it.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/weather-news/article254134493.html


When the thunder gets real big and close, first thing I do is make sure the truck has gas, get the ladders ready and make sure all the hoses are ready for action. Then I get all of my guitar cases loaded and ready to go.
 

soulman969

Most Honored Senior Member
Jan 5, 2016
5,560
Fort Collins, CO
You can't just move massive projects like the Hoover Dam to where the water is, and those projects took decades to get built even when the approval processes were much quicker.

An entire river, dam, and reservoir no but a pipeline carry fresh water from say the Great Lakes or other areas of the Midwest and the East where the current weather/climate cycle is overfilling lakes and rivers should be possible. They can use similar materials and technology used to build oil and gas pipelines but without the ecological danger and protests that come with those.

The water level in Lake Michigan is so high it's recapturing beaches and shorelines along the Chicago Lakefront and dangerously submerging concrete breakwaters that become a hazard to boaters. I make no claim that it would be easy but when we begin talking about "infrastructure" projects that's one that would surely have some merit once the details are worked out and obstacles overcome.

I believe we have to face the reality that the climate is changing and that some areas of this country may continue to experience long term droughts perhaps even permanently. The choice seems to be either to move massive populations and agriculture to where there is ample water or find ways to move the water we already have and collect now to where it's desperately needed.
 

Baelzebub

Dr. Stratster
Nov 1, 2019
14,744
State of Disbelief
An entire river, dam, and reservoir no but a pipeline carry fresh water from say the Great Lakes or other areas of the Midwest and the East where the current weather/climate cycle is overfilling lakes and rivers should be possible. They can use similar materials and technology used to build oil and gas pipelines but without the ecological danger and protests that come with those.

The water level in Lake Michigan is so high it's recapturing beaches and shorelines along the Chicago Lakefront and dangerously submerging concrete breakwaters that become a hazard to boaters. I make no claim that it would be easy but when we begin talking about "infrastructure" projects that's one that would surely have some merit once the details are worked out and obstacles overcome.

I believe we have to face the reality that the climate is changing and that some areas of this country may continue to experience long term droughts perhaps even permanently. The choice seems to be either to move massive populations and agriculture to where there is ample water or find ways to move the water we already have and collect now to where it's desperately needed.


I wouldn't argue the climate point with you, but the obstacles would be formidable. Particularly the lack of skilled labor to do the projects. It's a already being talked about by industry associations anticipating the flood of money/projects in the infrastructure bill.

As far as moving populations...that's the cause of a lot of the "shortages". There weren't shortages until the populations increased to outstrip the resources. If an area was already stretched to the limit then any change in climate, (utterly predictable as the one constant is change), becomes catastrophic even pretty quickly.

I agree we need to recognize the realities, but one of those is that we are the only creatures who seem to think we can adapt everything to us, instead of adapting to the larger system we're contained in.

So the question becomes at what point does it behoove us to adapt?

And interesting idea would be to use NYC as a test case. Most of the infrastructure there has been crumbling for decades and much of it is hundreds of years old. How many seawalls can you build to keep the seas from flooding it when they rise? And what's the cost of that vs. just letting the sea have it. It's a battle that will be lost. So why spend enormous amounts of human and other capital just staving it off?

NYC itself is not that large in terms of square miles. Plenty of open land across the river in Jersey. Why not build a city of the future around the realities of today, with infrastructure that encompasses things like fibre optic rings and city design that balances densities with quality of life considerations, live/work areas and transportation near each other, and any number of energy saving schemes?

In fact, there is a project in the works to do just that. Not with NYC, that's my own musing...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...s-plan-400-billion-us-desert-city/5750499001/
 


Top