Flood & Drought Balance | |||||||||||||||||
Before discussing the idea, let me be the first to acknowledge that it is of enormous size & cost. My premise being that for every problem there is a workable solution. The problem----- Floods & droughtsI told you it was going to be of enormous size. So if you care to listen --read on !!! First, our homes & businesses, along with furnishings, merchandise, vehicles& all other necessities of daily living has & will continue to be destroyed by flooding until something positive is done to find better answers to these flooding problems. The Solution--basically simple.We have to get rid of the water as fast as it rises.How do we do this ??If oil can be transported via pipelines so can water. Where are we going to pipe this water??? To those parts of the country that need water most (drought areas) & other parts of the country that are in short supply. Past history of flooding indicates that it begins mostly (not always) in our northern states & by way of flow continues to run South. Water will always follow the path of least resistance or pitch of gravity. My suggestion is to start with the hardest hit states & work to build a network of pipelines to get rid of the unwanted water & pipe to those sections of the country in need of it. To those critics who again question the cost---YES it is going to cost some BIB BUCKS, BUT ..just stop & think for a minute what the cost has been & will continue to esculate for continued rebuilding again & again. If we get rid of the water where it is causing the damage --it won't cause the damage. As far as the engineering needed for a project of this magnitude--it is feasible to do. AND SO... before going any deeper into the solution, I would like feedback concerning those out there who have comments both PRO or CON. Thank You.
Tom O'Neill, May 22 2007
What do you think of this idea or comment? | |||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
It seems to me to oversimplify the problem without considering the reasons for the misdistribution of water. There are all sorts of readjustments of terrain due to inappropriate land development that have caused many of the problems.
Newspapers have big articles all the time proclaiming the movement of "entire towns" out of the flood plain. And towns that are flooded year after year should be moved to higher ground. That this tends to happen at government expense is the real problem. People who build or buy houses in flood prone areas should not be bailed out by the government.
When I bought my house in 1998 the first thing I checked before making an offer was the probability of flooding. Since localized flooding is possible when catch basins back up not only do you have to look at whether or not the house is in the flood plain but you want to make sure the house is on the higher part of the block.
I get a real kick out of hearing people say that their house is in an area that would only be affected by the "500 year flood" like that is some kind of reassurance they can't get flooded in their lifetime. That "500 year" event could happen every year for the next ten if conditions are right (or wrong).
As for drought, again, periodic dry conditions require adjustment. If there is no way to easily obtain water in an area perhaps the thought that it is a good place to build a house is erroneous. I've seen houses built in the desert that require water delivery by tanker truck. Water can be delivered this way from long distances, but at what cost, I don't know (and don't care). The people who want this type of situation pay for it themselves and that's the way it should be.
Water is heavy (62#cu.ft.) and it does not run up-hill by itself. You're talking about a lot of energy and some very big pipes.