Flood Control and the Next 100 Years...

[PitbullMidwest]

Hobbyfarm, there was a letter to the editor in our local paper about the exact opposite of your suggestion. Like many parts of the country SE Iowa is in drought this year. The letter writer was enraged that Mississippi lock #18 was opened several times daily to accommodate barge traffic, allowing millions of gallons of water to flow south. He felt that we should be "hording" that water to irrigate the crops and water our lawns. You never know, we might need that water someday.

So..... Get your own water, we're keeping ours, even the flood water!!!

 

[hobbyfarm]

There's got to be a way to covserve all that flood water. It seems stupid that there's no way to pipe the overflow to some valleys somewhere.

That's my idea, and while it may take a hundred years to create the underground network of aquaducts and holding cells, it is highly do-able!
After all, they are mining the deep all over the place. I'm sure that the spoil would be very marketable also. Most probably be some type of ore to smelt.
I'm all for greening up the desert (s)west. Creating new crop lands and forests, and new recreational areas such as lakes etc. All that takes WATER!

I'm also surprised that this thread didn't take off more than it has. I guess too many people are short-sighted. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif I've got a feeling that most members feel like this would be paid for right out of their pocket.
That's baloney. Look at all the corporate investment that would be interested in a project like this.
Also, I think most of these members have trouble visualizing a several-decade project.

Oh well, their loss.

 

[mikim]

you're asking for water from areas that have a booming population growth and need that water for flushing toilets. I believe that Texas is going to be the next California. Too many people and not enough water to support 'em.....water to irrigate the desert....forget it. I just hope things don't get critical for 40 years yet ..... then I'll be dead and won't have to worry 'bout it.

 

[NewToy]

I think we would be better served by developing and improving current desalinization technology. I would hate to have the major "aqua tunnel" network installed and go through a major climate shift. Then we would have to install the pumps and go uphill.

John

 

[hobbyfarm]

That's right, let's all stick our head in the sand!

 

[hobbyfarm]

Wrong on both counts. (don't you hate that when that happens.)

Desalination is way way too expensive, and too impractical. That's like using "retail +" priced water. We need to use the water Mother Nature gives us. It's here already, just almost never where you need it in the quantity that it's needed (or not needed). Hence the idea of flood diversion through the duct work. Send the offending flood to a holding area.
Aqua tunnel in a "major climate shift".
This will be buried much deeper than the drain field in your backyard.
No, you won't have to pump uphill. Water seeks its own level. There will always be water available that gravity will make flow. It's just a matter of your source and the destination of the water. This is done by opening the correct valves.

If you need water at 2900' above sea level, you don't get your water from holding areas at 1200' above sea level. That's dumb. Open the series of valves that bring the water from, say, 8000' above sea level.

See s i m p l e !!

NEXT!
I guess the air is thin here on the forum. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
That's OK, I'll spoon-feed /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif everyone until they all get it! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[NewToy]

I certainly agree with you that current desalinization is expensive. That's where aggressive R&D would hopefully reduce the cost of this proven technology. With water shortages being a very real problem now, I don't know if we have the time to install this labyrinth of tunnels. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Bird]

It's been a long time since I heard anything about the idea to float icebergs from Alaska to California, or to build a pipeline from Alaska to California. I've read about both plans in the past, but it's been awhile.

 

[PitbullMidwest]

One problem I see is that you're relying on "flood water" to provide the resource. The Mississippi channel runs at about 8' here in Burlington, flood stage is 15' so before any water would be diverted Old Man River would need to rise 7'. The '93 flood crested at 25.1' and the '01 flood crested at 21.5' but these were 500 and 100 year floods respectively, it doesn't flood every year. Also as you add inlets to capture the flood water upstream, flood conditions downstream would decrease.

Silt would be another issue. The Corps dredges the channel regularly during normal conditions. During floods the amount of silt greatly increases as it strips soils from surrounding fields, if diverted its going to be carried to your tunnels until the water slows enough for the silt to fall out. How do you dredge a tunnel?

You may be on to the greatest idea of the new century, then again "Hobbyfarm's Aquifer" may become synonymous with "a hairbrain idea, lofty but unrealistic goals".

 

[hobbyfarm]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You may be on to the greatest idea of the new century, then again "Hobbyfarm's Aquifer" may become synonymous with "a hairbrain idea, lofty but unrealistic goals". )</font>

Yeah, hairbrained just like Edison's light bulb, Marconi's radio, or Bell's telephone.
But, just like Nicola Tesla, who also had great ideas, I'll probably die pennyless. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif