Criss Crossing the Country with channels?

[question everything]

Whenever there are severe droughts in some parts of the country and flooding in the others I am thinking about building channels that could transport water from where it is a disaster to where it would be welcomed.

Sure, it would be expensive, but how expensive are the droughts and the floods that we have, in one form or another, every year?

I remember reading about transporting water from Canada several years ago with a comment that it was too expensive, or that Canada was not interested... not sure.

But with weather extremes getting worse every year - perhaps we should think about it. This can be one part of rebuilding our infrastructure: a major plan that can provide jobs at all levels of skills, jobs that cannot be outsourced.

[SoCalDem]

1. People get very proprietary with "their" water

and the biggest user of water is agro-industries.. Think people want "their" water being provided on the cheap to ADM or ConAgra or Monsanto?

This is one reason why the South Americans are up in arms about Gringo businesses marching down there to start businesses and then start charging them for their own water:eyes:

[question everything]

2. But if "their" water just flood every thing?

and eventually wash away to the nearest lakes, or to the ocean, or to the nearest rivers?

Wouldn't they have liked to have some type of a spigot that diverted much of the water from Ohio and Iowa into, say, Arizona? What about all the water in Houston and in Oklahoma?

[SoCalDem]

4. You cannot control flooding, no matter how hard you try..

Lots of rain water gets wasted..

Have you ever been to the tropics?

Lost of places have currugated tin roofs, and the hillsides have collecting channels to save the rainwater in cisterns..

Midwesterners used to have cisterns, for that very reason too..

Now we just turn the spigot..:eyes:

[shraby]

3. I think it's an excellent idea in

view of the fact that some parts of the country experience catastrophic floods periodically, like Ohio for instance. If floodgates could be opened into tubes or channels of some sort to carry the excess rainwater away and keep a river from overrunning its banks, people living in those areas would probably be overjoyed to save their homes. That water could alleviate the droughts being suffered in other parts of the country.
Another thought on this idea, the conduits would have to be enclosed to keep people from using them in any manner so they wouldn't be caught in one accidentally when any of it needs to be used.

[LeftCoast]

5. You can look to CA as an example of your idea

CA has one of the most extensive water diversion systems in the world. It has allowed LA to become LA, but it's also caused extensive ecological destruction across the state. It also threatens to create far more damage as ever more water is required. Basically, transporting water from one area to another just moves the problem. There's another issue too. Where are you going to locate enough fresh water to make this idea work? CA has talked (in the past) about transporting water from Alaska, but the price is prohibitive both in terms of dollars and ecological damage. Seems to me that it would be far more effective to limit population growth and development as well as working toward reducing global warming.

[question everything]

6. The system of CA is fixed.

It is set to divert water on a regular basis from the Colorado River, I think. And, of course, as the population grew the demand on the river has increased.

What I am thinking is for a diversion only when one part of the country is flooded where the rivers overflow and that would trigger a diversion. Not a permanent channeling of water.

[LeftCoast]

8. Actually our water system is designed as both flood control and 'fixed' usage

In the monsoon season the system conveys water quickly away from populated regions out to the ocean. In the summer it takes snow melt from the Mt's and puts it into reservoirs for use. There is also water transport from the Colorado, the Owens Valley and the Sacramento river (which gets you much of NoCal's water-shed.

Thinking about the system you're talking about, I'm not sure how it could be engineered. It seems like you're describing a system that would take water from wherever it was falling and then transporting it to wherever it was dry. This would require multi-directional water transport that would probably be generally against gravity. Also, to be truly effective, it seems like it would need to be a massive system in which many parts would sit unused for years and perhaps decades.

I think the best way to deal with the problems you describe is to stop building up our flood plains and levying the rivers to death. Flood plains are natures way of dealing with deluges. By eliminating them we're just making flooding worse.

[shraby]

7. The OP has suggested a way to

help avoid catastrophic flooding, not a way to irrigate a section of the county on a continuing basis. With a system of conduits, it may be possible to channel the overflow elsewhere on a temporary basis.