(the) Interstate Canal System
A couple of months ago (August 2008 issue) Scientific American had a feature article about running low on fresh water. The following is my solution to the issue:
For thousands of years humans have been able to take water from one place and bring it to another. This was accomplished with tunnels, canals and aquaducts.
That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels, pipelines and aquaducts.
This way when one section of the USA is dry/ in a drought stage, the sections of the USA that have rain can share that bounty with those who are less fortunate.
Another advantage of my system is that it could, if applied properly, alleviate flooding.
It will also put many Americans back to work. The only issue is where is the money going to come from?
For thousands of years humans have been able to take water from one place and bring it to another. This was accomplished with tunnels, canals and aquaducts.
That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels, pipelines and aquaducts.
This way when one section of the USA is dry/ in a drought stage, the sections of the USA that have rain can share that bounty with those who are less fortunate.
Another advantage of my system is that it could, if applied properly, alleviate flooding.
It will also put many Americans back to work. The only issue is where is the money going to come from?
posted by Joe G @ 11:24 AM
29 Comments:
At 2:10 PM,
Unknown said…
I can't believe nobody has thought of this before! Just build canals! You are a genius!
At 4:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Thanks, but it isn't about "just building canals".
It is about water distribution via whatever means we have. Canals could/ would be just a part of it.
For example there is already the Los Angeles Aquaduct as a model for getting water to a dry/ arid place.
And we do have some experience with canals and tunnels so that will also be useful.
Also by capturing more of the runoff, as well as diverting some water from going into the oceans, we should be able to (somewhat) offset the rising oceans due to Greenland's and Antarctica's glacial melt-off.
At 11:05 AM,
blipey said…
You don't see any drawbacks to criss-crossing the country with canals?
At 8:21 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You don't see any drawbacks to criss-crossing the country with canals?
Who said anything about criss-crossing the country with canals?
I know I did not.
At 11:16 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, you said: "...my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels and aquaducts."
What waterways are you planning on connecting? Where are these canals going to be? Last I checked the Missouri and Snake rivers weren't very close. Also, last I checked, rivers that flow into each other don't need to be connected by canals--nature took care of that for us.
At 3:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you said: "...my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels and aquaducts."
I know what I said.
Your response of:
You don't see any drawbacks to criss-crossing the country with canals?
does not fit what I said.
blipey:
Last I checked the Missouri and Snake rivers weren't very close.
Thanks for the information.
Do you have a point?
blipey:
Also, last I checked, rivers that flow into each other don't need to be connected by canals--nature took care of that for us.
And your point is?
At 9:20 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
What waterways are you planning on connecting?
I would start in known flood zones- to help alleviate that threat. I would also start in current drought regions to help alleviate that problem.
A two-pronged attack.
blipey:
Where are these canals going to be?
The canals would be where they are needed. So will the tunnels and aquaducts.
IOW what would need to be done first is a risk assessment.
That assessment would include all waterways involved.
For example- The Ogallala Aquifer needs to be filled. Lake Meade is very low, as are lakes in the Atlanta, GA region.
These could be at the front of the line in getting connected to the new system.
The Mississippi and her tributaries are usually front and center when it comes to flooding in the USA so that could be a good place to begin.
At 6:50 PM,
blipey said…
Well, Joe. If you plan on connecting the Snake River to the Missouri River, you would be criss-crossing the United States with canals.
If you are planning on digging 14 canals to better drain the Mississippi flood plain, you might be criss-crossing the United States with canals (depending on where you planned on emptying these canals).
So, just by exercising the language ability of a five year old, you can see how your comment and my response are related.
At 7:45 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Well, Joe. If you plan on connecting the Snake River to the Missouri River, you would be criss-crossing the United States with canals.
I take it you don't know anything about geography either:
Map of the Missouri River
Columbia River basin including the Snake River
Both rivers start very close to each other. The Missouri in southwestern Montana and the Snake in Yellowstone- northestern Wyoming.
IOW once again you prove you are an ignorant fuck.
blipey:
If you are planning on digging 14 canals to better drain the Mississippi flood plain, you might be criss-crossing the United States with canals (depending on where you planned on emptying these canals).
Might be? And what about the tunnels I mentioned?
blipey:
So, just by exercising the language ability of a five year old, you can see how your comment and my response are related.
A 5 year old would know That I also said "tunnels and aquaducts". Ya see 5 year olds are far more honest that a lying clown.
At 8:02 AM,
Joe G said…
So now the question is-
Why does blipey totally ignore the "tunnels and aquaducts" portion of:
That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels and aquaducts.?
Now THAT is a simple question. And I am sure clowny will avoid answering it.
At 5:58 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
You can rest assured that clowns will not have anything to do with an engineering project of this magnitude.
People find their niche in life for a reason- live with it.
At 1:03 PM,
Unknown said…
I'm going out on a limb here and say that joe could have a point. I have no idea, but I am willing to let people smarter than me (joe?) come up with ideas on how to fix the world.
It sounds silly to me, yes, but at least your thinking!
At 8:20 PM,
blipey said…
Why not?
Two things. First, do you think you can really join the headwaters of the two rivers with a canal? or an aqueduct? or a tunnel?
Secondly, fine. Do you see any problems with criss-crossing the country with canals and tunnels and aqueducts?
At 8:22 PM,
blipey said…
And the following isn't a question, Joe:
JoeG said, That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels and aquaducts.?
Merely putting a question mark at the end does not a question make.
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
I'm going out on a limb here and say that joe could have a point. I have no idea, but I am willing to let people smarter than me (joe?) come up with ideas on how to fix the world.
It sounds silly to me, yes, but at least your thinking!
You should read the "solutions" SA put frh.
1- charge more for water because thet is the only way Am,ericans will conserve
I will list the other 5 later.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh and I forgot pipelines!
That was a big OOOPS...
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Why not?
Why not what?
Two things. First, do you think you can really join the headwaters of the two rivers with a canal? or an aqueduct? or a tunnel?
It is possible but that is not in my plan.
Secondly, fine. Do you see any problems with criss-crossing the country with canals and tunnels and aqueducts?
Yes, the cost is the only problem I can see.
Other than the cost I don't see any problems at all.
But maybe you, a clown, does.
So why don't you post the problem you see and then we can discuss it.
But please keep in mind that PIPELINES have gotten back into the picture- I forgot them in my opening post.
and blipey, you stupid aasshole- the question is why did you ignore the tunnels and aquaduct portion of my comment.
A 5 year old would have understood that much.
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Just for the clown I will re-post the question IN ITS ENTIRETY with the appropriate parts in blod:
Why does blipey totally ignore the "tunnels and aquaducts" portion of:
That said, my proposal is to connect existing water systems- rivers, streams, lakes, etc. using technology we already have. To accomplish this we can dig canals, install tunnels and aquaducts.?
Ya see clowny the question mark is after the period and belongs to the first paert that begins with the word "Why".
However I understand that you are an illiterate moron and as such can only attack things that are not there.
At 9:46 AM,
Joe G said…
New York City's water system:
New York City's water supply system has grown from a few wells on Manhattan Island to one of America's most extensive municipal systems. Today, it relies on a combination of tunnels, aqueducts and 19 reservoirs both in the city and far upstate to meet the daily needs of 8 million residents and countless visitors. Thanks to well protected wilderness watersheds, New York's water treatment is simpler than in other American cities. Downhill flow allows the system to do without pumps.
OK so we have LA's water system coming from far upstate Cali and NYC's water coming from upstate NY.
I know Boston's water comes from Thne Quabbin Res.:
The Quabbin Reservoir is the largest body of water in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was built between 1930 and 1939. Today along with the Wachusett Reservoir, it is the primary water supply for Boston, some 65 miles to the east, as well as 40 other communities in Greater Boston and the MetroWest area.
IOW we have extensive experience with taking water from one place and bringing it many miles to another.
So just because people, like tft and the clown, can build red-herrings and strawmen in their minds does not mean they translate to real life.
But I should also note that neither has come forward with an actual problem. Just vague blastts like "that sounds silly to me".
Rest assured it is not silly to the people who need water.
At 3:39 PM,
Joe G said…
The following is from the August 2008 issue of Scientific American:
1. Charge more for water because higher prices promote conservation
2. Conserve irrigation water- that is fixing all leaks and repair existing systems. Also start banking water underground to prevent loss via evaporation. A 10% drop in irrigation water would save more than is used by all other consumers.
3. Maintenance of the water infrastructure- $$$ for the maintenance of and creation of new water infrastructure.
4. Adopt low-water sanitation- low-water-use toilets as well as containing and re-using the waste
5. Ship “virtual water”- A kilogram of wheat takes about 1,000 liters of water to make, so each kilogram “contains” that quantity. That should also mean the country shipped to would be using less water to irrigate
6. Exploit advanced desalination technology
At 7:19 PM,
blipey said…
Wow. Costs? See, that wasn't so hard was it? A simple answer to a simple question. Too bad you're such a fucknut that you can't do that all the time.
Now that you're actually having a discussion, I do see some other problems. Perhaps they are not stoppers, but I think they may need consideration.
1. If too many tunnels, canals, pipelines, and whateverthefuckelse are constructed, they may impinge on land that would be better used for other things.
2. There would certainly be environmental concerns to both the water habitats and the ecosystems through which each canal, tunnel, pipeline, or whateverthefuck goes through.
These are the two major concerns I see (besides cost).
At 11:44 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Cost was highlighted in the original blog entry:
The only issue is where is the money going to come from?
1. If too many tunnels, canals, pipelines, and whateverthefuckelse are constructed, they may impinge on land that would be better used for other things.
MAY impinge?
IOW all you have is a strawman.
2. There would certainly be environmental concerns to both the water habitats and the ecosystems through which each canal, tunnel, pipeline, or whateverthefuck goes through.
Certainly? And you know this how?
IOW did you do a study on the environments that would be affected?
Strawman #2.
So it appears you don't have any valid concerns, just a couple of made-up issues that may do something.
And just because a cown thinks that two strawmen are "major issues" do not make them so.
As I said blipey, clowns will not be a part of the engineering team.
And as it appears you have some fucked-up notion of my real intentions in your pointy little head and you think that because you are so fucked up that my plan will also be so.
At 4:34 PM,
blipey said…
Joe, you're a fuckwit. Really. You couldn't think deeply about a subject if it promised to blow your very small penis.
Canals, tunnels, and pipelines may (yes MAY--as in might or might not) disrupt land usage for other more worthwhile projects. This is not a strawman (please stop using concepts you can't define).
Depending on how many canals, tunnels, and whatthefuck you plan on building, the amount of land used could be quite substantial. The only reason I don't give a specific example is because you have failed to even start discussing the specifics of your idea. So, yes, it MAY be a bad use of land. Tell me how much land you're going to use and where and then we'll see if it's a problem or not.
The environmental question is related bu no identical to the above situation. Chopping down a forest to build a canal may (yes MAY) constitute an environmental problem. Once again, since you seem incapable of rational discussion, the specifics (and associated validity of my concern) will have to wait.
Jesus, you're dull.
On a related topic (dullness), why don't you come over to my place a divulge your age of the Earth--or at least why you know it's not 6,000 years old?
At 7:38 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Both of your "concerns" are strawmen because you don't have any specifics.
The only reason I don't give a specific example is because you have failed to even start discussing the specifics of your idea.
Then you should just shut up until I do.
And rest assured that you, a clown, will not be on the engineering team.
However I digress, but you did get one thing correct- all you are looking at is an IDEA.
And that means until you see a specific plan ALL of your concerns have a great possibility of being strawmen.
So the bottom line is your made-up concerns do not do anything.
But I wouldn't expect a child molesting clown, like you, to understand that.
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
And blipey, I will discuss my idea with engineers, not clowns, in order to get a viable plan.
But guess what? Floods and droughts also cause environmental problems, as well as take a toll on human populations.
At 11:32 AM,
blipey said…
Strawman: making up, in whole, details about a plan in order to attack those details and not thereal plan.
My examples are in no way strawmen. The concerns have directbearing on your actual argument; they are no made up.
You say that you would like to build an interstate canal system (along with tunnels and whatnot). When these things are built, they will use land resources. The concern is that they may use land in an inefficient manner. This is not made up; it follows linearly from the fact that building this system will require land use.
It is a concern and not a problem because there is the possibility that the canal system is the est use of land. Concerns must be raised before the onset of a project, Joe.
So, not a strawman--a legitimate concern. Not a problem--an inquiry into whether it might be a problem.
I'll bet if you talk to those engineers the exact same concerns will be brought up.
At 4:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Description of Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
blipey:
You don't see any drawbacks to criss-crossing the country with canals?
Do you see any problems with criss-crossing the country with canals and tunnels and aqueducts?
I NEVER said anything about criss-crossing the country.
IOW you have some strawman idea in your head about what I am going to do.
And that makes your examples starwmen because they are a direct result of the original strawman you constructed.
Also your argument went from "drawbacks to problems and now concerns".
But anyway as I have stated several times now, we do, believe it or not, have plenty of experience with taking water from one place and redirecting the flow to another.
And blipey, your "concerns" would be valid if you were on the team. However, again believe it or not, we do have very qualified people that can pull this off.
Heck they are already talking about "banking water" and desalination plants. Those will also raise the same concerns you have.
Perhaps you should send a letter to SciAm...
At 11:02 PM,
blipey said…
We?
Are you a part of the team, Joe? Interesting.
Again, not a strawman. Your definition was the same as my definition. Your example does not show that my concerns are strawmen.
You gave basically no details besides building a canal system. My question/concern/problem follows from your lack of detail.
You could have answered the concern merely by stating that your (your team's?) plan would do X and Y. Leaving your plan open ended (at least in provisional details) allows for questions to be raised.
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
"We" as in the people of this planet. And seeing it is my idea then I would be part of the team.
But you, a clown, would never be.
Yes your "concerns" are strawmen because you have some fucked-up idea in your head and your concerns are based on that fucked-up idea.
You gave basically no details besides building a canal system.
I know what I gave. And that is basically why you don't have anything but made-up "concerns".
And BTW there isn't any plan, yet.
This is an IDEA. And seeing that you have never had one in your life your knee-jerk reaction is to attack that which is foreign to you.
Ya see posting ideas invites those with IQs over 90 to participate in advancing/ discussing them.
For those with IQs lower than 75, ideas just provide fodder for their strawmen.
Post a Comment
<< Home