Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let's not discuss the Keystone XL here.

Instead, why does this country not have a nationwide network of water pipelines? I know the SW is in a major drought and where I live has had an overabundance of rain. Why don't we have a pipeline network to get water where it needs to go?

Am I a communist for even asking?

93henfan wrote:Let's not discuss the Keystone XL here.

Instead, why does this country not have a nationwide network of water pipelines? I know the SW is in a major drought and where I live has had an overabundance of rain. Why don't we have a pipeline network to get water where it needs to go?

Am I a communist for even asking?

Yes
/thread.

We don't even have a nationwide network of ROADS that we're willing to spend the money to maintain. Too busy rebuilding Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

AZGrizFan wrote:We don't even have a nationwide network of ROADS that we're willing to spend the money to maintain. Too busy rebuilding Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

Wouldn't a water pipe be a lot cheaper to maintain than a road?

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:We don't even have a nationwide network of ROADS that we're willing to spend the money to maintain. Too busy rebuilding Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

Wouldn't a water pipe be a lot cheaper to maintain than a road?

Depends. You want them above-ground?

And NOTHING is cheap when it comes to public works projects.

If you're going to build something that astronomically expensive, you'don't better have something more valuable than H2O flowing through it.

Grizalltheway wrote:If you're going to build something that astronomically expensive, you'don't better have something more valuable than H2O flowing through it.

Wrong. You clearly have no idea how much money is involved with water rights issues and its corresponding water systems.

CA does have a network for its water system (see CA Aqueduct). Problem is CA's population has skyrocketed since it was completed and the water infrastructure (along with most other infrastructure) has largely been neglected. Therefore theya re in need of some attention. The good news (for me and my fellow civil engineers) is that these infrastructure systems (water, wastewater, transpo, rail, etc) are now reaching the end of their useful life and will need serious investment for expansion, upgrade, rehab, etc. The even better news is that some of these systems (namely water and wastewater) can't be ignored as the very existence of the cities they support largely depend upon them.

Class dismissed.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Wouldn't a water pipe be a lot cheaper to maintain than a road?

Depends. You want them above-ground?

And NOTHING is cheap when it comes to public works projects.

Depends on the construction type and various conditions. There are lots of options when determining how much a public works project will cost.

PVC is always dirt cheap at Home Depot.

SDHornet wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Depends. You want them above-ground?

And NOTHING is cheap when it comes to public works projects.

Depends on the construction type and various conditions. There are lots of options when determining how much a public works project will cost.

Big government projects are good for engineers, architects, and contractors.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Depends on the construction type and various conditions. There are lots of options when determining how much a public works project will cost.

Big government projects are good for engineers, architects, and contractors.

Yup, and the economy as construction projects have a very high multiplier. If Congress, Obama and any other retards on the Hill really wanted to get the country back to work they would have passed a litany of public works projects years ago.

SDHornet wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:If you're going to build something that astronomically expensive, you'don't better have something more valuable than H2O flowing through it.

Wrong. You clearly have no idea how much money is involved with water rights issues and its corresponding water systems.

CA does have a network for its water system (see CA Aqueduct). Problem is CA's population has skyrocketed since it was completed and the water infrastructure (along with most other infrastructure) has largely been neglected. Therefore theya re in need of some attention. The good news (for me and my fellow civil engineers) is that these infrastructure systems (water, wastewater, transpo, rail, etc) are now reaching the end of their useful life and will need serious investment for expansion, upgrade, rehab, etc. The even better news is that some of these systems (namely water and wastewater) can't be ignored as the very existence of the cities they support largely depend upon them.

Class dismissed.

So you're saying it would be cost effective to build a water pipeline from Delaware to southern California, professor?

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
Big government projects are good for engineers, architects, and contractors.

Yup, and the economy as construction projects have a very high multiplier. If Congress, Obama and any other retards on the Hill really wanted to get the country back to work they would have passed a litany of public works projects years ago.

Agreed. And to steal from another thread…

Grizalltheway wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Wrong. You clearly have no idea how much money is involved with water rights issues and its corresponding water systems.

CA does have a network for its water system (see CA Aqueduct). Problem is CA's population has skyrocketed since it was completed and the water infrastructure (along with most other infrastructure) has largely been neglected. Therefore theya re in need of some attention. The good news (for me and my fellow civil engineers) is that these infrastructure systems (water, wastewater, transpo, rail, etc) are now reaching the end of their useful life and will need serious investment for expansion, upgrade, rehab, etc. The even better news is that some of these systems (namely water and wastewater) can't be ignored as the very existence of the cities they support largely depend upon them.

Class dismissed.

So you're saying it would be cost effective to build a water pipeline from Delaware to southern California, professor?

When was that idea floated?

SDHornet wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: So you're saying it would be cost effective to build a water pipeline from Delaware to southern California, professor?

When was that idea floated?

Maybe next time you should read the original post more carefully before you go on a know-it-all rant.

I know the SW is in a major drought and where I live has had an overabundance of rain. Why don't we have a pipeline network to get water where it needs to go?

Grizalltheway wrote:

SDHornet wrote: When was that idea floated?

Maybe next time you should read the original post more carefully before you go on a know-it-all rant.

I know the SW is in a major drought and where I live has had an overabundance of rain. Why don't we have a pipeline network to get water where it needs to go?

And I pointed out that CA does with the California Aqueduct system.

Reading is fundamental.

93henfan wrote:PVC is always dirt cheap at Home Depot.

PVC is good, HDPE is better (at least for larger diameter). Agencies always have their preferences though. Some like RCP and other mortar lined welded steel. You'd be amazed at the quotes received for various pipe types for certain projects. Each have their pros and cons.

Don't want to suffer from a drought?

Don't like in a desert or area that is naturally devoid of fresh water

clenz wrote:Don't want to suffer from a drought?

Don't like in a desert or area that is naturally devoid of fresh water

Yup...or you can convey in the water needed via a storage and aqueduct system...or desal when the economics works out. It's 2015 and technology exists to solve most of the worlds problems.

clenz wrote:Don't want to suffer from a drought?

Don't like in a desert or area that is naturally devoid of fresh water

Don't like floods, blizzards, tornadoes and balls fall off cold weather, don't live in....

93henfan wrote:

clenz wrote:Don't want to suffer from a drought?

Don't like in a desert or area that is naturally devoid of fresh water

Don't like floods, blizzards, tornadoes and balls fall off cold weather, don't live in....

I can live with those and they all actually serve an important role in keeping the ecosystem in check. They are also easy to live with. Cold, snow, floods, tornadoes are all very short term things lasting less than a week.

Voluntarily building/living in an area completely devoid of the single most important resource known to survival with the exception of fresh air. That is permanent and silly

clenz wrote:

93henfan wrote:

Don't like floods, blizzards, tornadoes and balls fall off cold weather, don't live in....

I can live with those and they all actually serve an important role in keeping the ecosystem in check. They are also easy to live with. Cold, snow, floods, tornadoes are all very short term things lasting less than a week.

Voluntarily building/living in an area completely devoid of the single most important resource known to survival with the exception of fresh air. That is permanent and silly

And has been happening since the existence of man. Here is one of the earliest civilizations in North America that did this:

In North America, the Hohokam were the only culture to rely on irrigation canals to water their crops, and their irrigation systems supported the largest population in the Southwest by AD 1300.[3] Archaeologists working at a major archaeological dig in the 1990s in the Tucson Basin, along the Santa Cruz River, identified a culture and people that were ancestors of the Hohokam[4] that might have occupied southern Arizona as early as 2000 BC.[3] This prehistoric group from the Early Agricultural Period grew corn, lived year round in sedentary villages and developed sophisticated irrigation canals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam

Bottom line is you can get away with this if resources are properly used and maintained. We are largely seeing issues in current day because of infrastructure neglect and failure to properly plan for the future.

SDHornet wrote:

clenz wrote:
I can live with those and they all actually serve an important role in keeping the ecosystem in check. They are also easy to live with. Cold, snow, floods, tornadoes are all very short term things lasting less than a week.

Voluntarily building/living in an area completely devoid of the single most important resource known to survival with the exception of fresh air. That is permanent and silly

And has been happening since the existence of man. Here is one of the earliest civilizations in North America that did this:

In North America, the Hohokam were the only culture to rely on irrigation canals to water their crops, and their irrigation systems supported the largest population in the Southwest by AD 1300.[3] Archaeologists working at a major archaeological dig in the 1990s in the Tucson Basin, along the Santa Cruz River, identified a culture and people that were ancestors of the Hohokam[4] that might have occupied southern Arizona as early as 2000 BC.[3] This prehistoric group from the Early Agricultural Period grew corn, lived year round in sedentary villages and developed sophisticated irrigation canals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam

Bottom line is you can get away with this if resources are properly used and maintained. We are largely seeing issues in current day because of infrastructure neglect and failure to properly plan for the future.

Because we didn't think millions and millions of people would be dumb enough to live in a fucking desert

clenz wrote:

SDHornet wrote: And has been happening since the existence of man. Here is one of the earliest civilizations in North America that did this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam

Bottom line is you can get away with this if resources are properly used and maintained. We are largely seeing issues in current day because of infrastructure neglect and failure to properly plan for the future.

Because we didn't think millions and millions of people would be dumb enough to live in a fucking desert

Yes...yes we did, otherwise water rights to sustain those populations in arid and dry climates wouldn't have been secured in the early part of the last century.

Piping water by gravity is somewhat inexpensive. Put pressure on it and it becomes more complex. The cost of pumping uphill is expensive. Also, the cost of the pressure pipe is much more expensive. (Relative to the cost of the product. Water vs. oil for example)

The other part of the problem is the quality of the water that is piped. Do you treat it first or should it be piped raw? Treated water causes scaling and deposit buildups that clog water mains. Raw water would speed the process.



The only option is to ship all the people to the east coast where the water is.
Wait.
Fuck that.
Let them thirst.