3 ms·

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a government should do.

superkuh 4y ago
My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition. It's questionable if it can be done in a way that's not harmful to the Mississippi watershed and ogallala aquifer. But you're right, the human good it could do would justify much. The advocacy group NRDC has a much better explanation of the general concept and specific Mississippi/Ogallala proposal: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-report.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-rep... Two things become clear. The mississippi/ogallala project would have to be an aqueduct project and not a pipeline if it wants to move a helpful amount of water to justify itself and it would require an exorbitant amount of energy to pump water from, say, Omaha to Denver. It doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening before many smaller projects are attempted first local to the southwest.
- richk449 4y ago
  > My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition It is interesting that a project like this runs into visceral opposition from two different sides. Those on the left may object that we shouldn't be messing with the natural world in ways that will have consequences we won't understand. Those on the right may object that we shouldn't be attempting large expensive government projects that will intrude on individual liberty. Both objections have some validity. But neither are cost/benefit analyses, which is a much better way to evaluate whether we should be doing something than asking whether it perfectly aligns with my principles.
  - bananarchist 4y ago
    The visceral reaction is little about left and right. Ask a west coaster: what if the shore and the mountains and dense forests went away? What if the dramatic canyons and sweeping dunes of the southwest were confiscated? Lush lakes and rivers are one of the primary geographical features of appeal in the Midwest. Taking them away is no different than taking away the geographical features that make people move to the west. The principle this is about is justice, not nature or small governance, and you can’t tell another their justice. It’s no surprise someone prioritizing cost benefit analyses is so blind to the feelings of real people.
donatj 4y ago
I don't know how you figure that. People move every day on their own. People can literally just start walking east for free. > Plus, sun is good for people and crops We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours.
- richk449 4y ago
  > We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours. I grew up in the Midwest. Plenty of sunlight are not words I would use to describe it.
Arnt 4y ago
It seems easier at first, in much the same way that an O(n) algorithm may seem faster than O(1) at first. You'd have to move very approximately one tanker full of water for each person every week, for the rest of that person's life. You can think of much more effective ways to do it than with tankers, but can you think of any that are more effective than moving the person to the water?
- richk449 4y ago
  I’m not sure why “effective” is the metric you are using. I’m saying it is easier to dig a canal that can provide water for tens of millions of people than it is to move tens of millions of people to a new state.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    This has been discussed before on HN. Quoting an actual engineer from faulty memory: Boring a tunnel through the mountains is well beyond what's currently doable. Doing it on the surface would require lifting the water a few km up in order to let it flow down on the other side, and would be the largest engineering project ever, expensive to build and equally expensive to operate. Total water use (including farming and industry) may well be well over 1000kg per person and day even if it's restricted because the water is expensive, lifting that weight several km requires a lot of energy and expense. Sorry about the word effective, it should have been efficient. I used the word because the pumps may be compared to other means of transport in terms of water moved per joule spent.

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a government should do.

superkuh 4y ago

My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition. It's questionable if it can be done in a way that's not harmful to the Mississippi watershed and ogallala aquifer. But you're right, the human good it could do would justify much. The advocacy group NRDC has a much better explanation of the general concept and specific Mississippi/Ogallala proposal: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-report.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-rep... Two things become clear. The mississippi/ogallala project would have to be an aqueduct project and not a pipeline if it wants to move a helpful amount of water to justify itself and it would require an exorbitant amount of energy to pump water from, say, Omaha to Denver. It doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening before many smaller projects are attempted first local to the southwest.

richk449 4y ago
> My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition It is interesting that a project like this runs into visceral opposition from two different sides. Those on the left may object that we shouldn't be messing with the natural world in ways that will have consequences we won't understand. Those on the right may object that we shouldn't be attempting large expensive government projects that will intrude on individual liberty. Both objections have some validity. But neither are cost/benefit analyses, which is a much better way to evaluate whether we should be doing something than asking whether it perfectly aligns with my principles.
- bananarchist 4y ago
  The visceral reaction is little about left and right. Ask a west coaster: what if the shore and the mountains and dense forests went away? What if the dramatic canyons and sweeping dunes of the southwest were confiscated? Lush lakes and rivers are one of the primary geographical features of appeal in the Midwest. Taking them away is no different than taking away the geographical features that make people move to the west. The principle this is about is justice, not nature or small governance, and you can’t tell another their justice. It’s no surprise someone prioritizing cost benefit analyses is so blind to the feelings of real people.

donatj 4y ago

I don't know how you figure that. People move every day on their own. People can literally just start walking east for free. > Plus, sun is good for people and crops We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours.

richk449 4y ago
> We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours. I grew up in the Midwest. Plenty of sunlight are not words I would use to describe it.

Arnt 4y ago

It seems easier at first, in much the same way that an O(n) algorithm may seem faster than O(1) at first. You'd have to move very approximately one tanker full of water for each person every week, for the rest of that person's life. You can think of much more effective ways to do it than with tankers, but can you think of any that are more effective than moving the person to the water?

richk449 4y ago
I’m not sure why “effective” is the metric you are using. I’m saying it is easier to dig a canal that can provide water for tens of millions of people than it is to move tens of millions of people to a new state.
- Arnt 4y ago
  This has been discussed before on HN. Quoting an actual engineer from faulty memory: Boring a tunnel through the mountains is well beyond what's currently doable. Doing it on the surface would require lifting the water a few km up in order to let it flow down on the other side, and would be the largest engineering project ever, expensive to build and equally expensive to operate. Total water use (including farming and industry) may well be well over 1000kg per person and day even if it's restricted because the water is expensive, lifting that weight several km requires a lot of energy and expense. Sorry about the word effective, it should have been efficient. I used the word because the pumps may be compared to other means of transport in terms of water moved per joule spent.