3 ms·

It's time for a national water grid(https://www.osti.gov/biblio/963122-national-smart-water-grid https://www.osti.gov/biblio/963122-national-smart-water-grid):

It's time for a national water grid(https://www.osti.gov/biblio/963122-national-smart-water-grid https://www.osti.gov/biblio/963122-national-smart-water-grid): > The National Smart Water Grid{trademark} will pay for itself in a single major flood event. (that's probably a bit optimistic but even if it takes 10 flood events it's worth it) Weather patterns will likely change dramatically and violently. We cannot relocate our farmland fast enough. We need a system capable of absorbing extreme precipitation and reclaiming it for food. This isn't about stealing water from the Great Lakes(that's a common worry). Yes, pumping water takes energy, but it also provides an infrastructure for gravitational storage of solar energy for night time use. We need to think big, and we need to think fast. North America has plenty of water and plenty of land suitable for growing food but they don't always line up. It is easier to move water than to move farmland with all of its associated supply chains and infrastructure. We can take small amounts of water from all over the wetter areas of the country during times of excess and transport it to drier areas to grow food and support manufacturing. I believe the net environmental impact would be positive. We could allow CA rivers and streams to flow as they used to, supporting wildlife and replenishing our beaches. It's a project that provides jobs, national and international food security, reduces flooding damage, and allows us to adapt to climate change. Sorry for posting some version of this comment in every water related thread but I think it is critical that we think big for the big problems facing us now and in the near future.

thehappypm 5y ago
No. Pumping water is one of the most ecologically horrific things to do. It’s running a power plant backwards. Rather than having a farm in New York State, let’s have a farm in New Mexico that requires pumping water up a mile and 1000 horizontal miles. Totally makes sense, right? Places like California completely eradicated farming in the East but it’s based on an ecological lie. When the water runs out we’ll see why it was a mistake.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> It's time for a national water grid I mean you have massive, massive mountains that preclude you from doing that fast or in an energy efficient way. Its far, far simpler and cheaper and effective to increase dwell time of rain water. What do I mean by this? Every year lots of money is spent in and around california to maintain storm drains and infra. They spend billions trying to get excess water from the hills to the sea in a faster way as possible. However this means that the water isn't soaking into the land, which means its not there in summer to evaporate and provide clouds, which rain and drive weather cycles. Basically its drought causing. By selectively blocking drainage systems, and forcing localised flooding (ie flood planes) not only do you get less damaging flash floods (the water takes a lot longer to get from a to b) a shit tonne more water drains into the soil. This means that more plants grow, which means less sun hitting the floor, which means lower temperatures, etc etc, etc Whats more its fucking cheap. > It is easier to move water than to move farmland with all of its associated supply chains and infrastructure. I mean that's patently not the case. If it was cheap to move water then we'd see loads of many thousand mile irrigation canals and pipes. We only really see it for high value crops. There was a plan to create a nationwide canal "backbone" for the UK (a canal can be used for moving water as well) But as it would cost ~10% of GDP to build it wasn't practical.
- 01100011 5y ago
  > I mean you have massive, massive mountains that preclude you from doing that fast or in an energy efficient way. Water goes up and takes energy. Water goes down and releases energy. Sure, there's loss to inefficiencies, but it's not like the energy used to pump the water uphill is completely lost. You can also pump it uphill when you have excess renewable energy and reclaim most of that energy when you do not. > Its far, far simpler and cheaper and effective to increase dwell time of rain water. Sure, but focusing on any single solution, including a national water grid, isn't going to solve the problem.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
More or less impossible without dismantling the water rights legal structure of many western states. In states like NM, AZ, CO etc., the state does not have the legal right to administrate water usage in a meaningful way, certainly not the way that states east of the Mississippi River can. And while that would likely be a good idea, it will meet tremendous opposition, even if that opposition is foolish in the long. BTW: moving water to the southwest is a terribly dumb idea.
stormbrew 5y ago
It seems like you'd have to do a lot more than just set up the pipes and pumps to make this something that would work well. With things as they are, it seems like it would just turn into a "too much traffic? add more lanes" kind of thing. Pump more water to California and California will just use more water. What will stop a state from essentially letting California suck it dry, as it has basically done to itself already, for political or financial reasons?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Completely agree. California should either a) stop using so much water or b) buy water from wet places. I don’t feel any obligation whatsoever to irrigate the desert across the country. Plenty of farmland in the Midwest and East.

thehappypm 5y ago

No. Pumping water is one of the most ecologically horrific things to do. It’s running a power plant backwards. Rather than having a farm in New York State, let’s have a farm in New Mexico that requires pumping water up a mile and 1000 horizontal miles. Totally makes sense, right? Places like California completely eradicated farming in the East but it’s based on an ecological lie. When the water runs out we’ll see why it was a mistake.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> It's time for a national water grid I mean you have massive, massive mountains that preclude you from doing that fast or in an energy efficient way. Its far, far simpler and cheaper and effective to increase dwell time of rain water. What do I mean by this? Every year lots of money is spent in and around california to maintain storm drains and infra. They spend billions trying to get excess water from the hills to the sea in a faster way as possible. However this means that the water isn't soaking into the land, which means its not there in summer to evaporate and provide clouds, which rain and drive weather cycles. Basically its drought causing. By selectively blocking drainage systems, and forcing localised flooding (ie flood planes) not only do you get less damaging flash floods (the water takes a lot longer to get from a to b) a shit tonne more water drains into the soil. This means that more plants grow, which means less sun hitting the floor, which means lower temperatures, etc etc, etc Whats more its fucking cheap. > It is easier to move water than to move farmland with all of its associated supply chains and infrastructure. I mean that's patently not the case. If it was cheap to move water then we'd see loads of many thousand mile irrigation canals and pipes. We only really see it for high value crops. There was a plan to create a nationwide canal "backbone" for the UK (a canal can be used for moving water as well) But as it would cost ~10% of GDP to build it wasn't practical.

01100011 5y ago
> I mean you have massive, massive mountains that preclude you from doing that fast or in an energy efficient way. Water goes up and takes energy. Water goes down and releases energy. Sure, there's loss to inefficiencies, but it's not like the energy used to pump the water uphill is completely lost. You can also pump it uphill when you have excess renewable energy and reclaim most of that energy when you do not. > Its far, far simpler and cheaper and effective to increase dwell time of rain water. Sure, but focusing on any single solution, including a national water grid, isn't going to solve the problem.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

More or less impossible without dismantling the water rights legal structure of many western states. In states like NM, AZ, CO etc., the state does not have the legal right to administrate water usage in a meaningful way, certainly not the way that states east of the Mississippi River can. And while that would likely be a good idea, it will meet tremendous opposition, even if that opposition is foolish in the long. BTW: moving water to the southwest is a terribly dumb idea.

stormbrew 5y ago

It seems like you'd have to do a lot more than just set up the pipes and pumps to make this something that would work well. With things as they are, it seems like it would just turn into a "too much traffic? add more lanes" kind of thing. Pump more water to California and California will just use more water. What will stop a state from essentially letting California suck it dry, as it has basically done to itself already, for political or financial reasons?

thehappypm 5y ago
Completely agree. California should either a) stop using so much water or b) buy water from wet places. I don’t feel any obligation whatsoever to irrigate the desert across the country. Plenty of farmland in the Midwest and East.