Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

As I watch the flooding building up...

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by brndirt1, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    from the Rocky Mountains east, I had a thought. I know this is a really "out there" idea, but it was prompted by another post which postulated "why can’t the flooding water be ‘pipe-lined’ to the areas which are in drought?". That got me to thinking, it wouldn’t need much pumping power to get excess water from the areas directly east of the Rocky Mountains, to areas west of the Mississippi. Those in Montana are at about 3 to 4,000 feet above sea level, and gravity alone could send that water to the southwest.

    Now, another thing I was thinking of was this; instead of just releasing the extra "overflow" water into the river system over spillways as we do now, why not build a large pipeline system which would use any extra to be directed back into the Ogallala aquifer. That would allow the river levels to remain at a constant, but not use the "spillway" water just as waste to dump into the system to just go downstream and cause problems for those living in the "flood plains".

    Since the 1950s we (American farmers) have depleted this aquifer by over 9%, which is thousands of years of accumulation, and that lowers the water level for all those who rely on it for irrigation so they have to pump the water from deeper and deeper. If we count on natural regeneration, we in the American farmland will probably deplete the aquifer in less than fifty years (?). However, if we directed the excess overflow from our existing dams toward the Ogallala and "dump it in" at some point in Nebraska with a deep water reverse well, we might be able to find a place for this water instead of just flushing it downstream to the Gulf.

    Now this would do a number of things that I can foresee. One, create infrastructure constuction jobs, ease the river level fluctuations, and replenish the Ogallala much faster than it will by normal seepage. That build-up took centuries, and we have depleted it in decades through irrigation.
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I've wondered about refilling the aquifer's as well. Wouldn't even have to worry too much about how clean the water is as you are running it through a filter many miles long. I think they actually talked about this some years ago but didn't go forward with it. I don't remember why. I suspect that it might not be able to handle the surges major floods produce but it couldn't hurt and should help some.
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I sort of remember that too Lee, now I don't know the flow capacity of the other dams on the Missouri (there are none on the Yellowstone) here in Montana, but the Ft. Peck dam releases up to 60,000 cubic feet per second at it peak ability in overflow spillways. That water doesn't go through the electric system, just out and gone down the river. If they planned on that much flow capacity, then if it was even more they would at least be releasing less down stream overall. I don't know why dynamos couldn't be included in the system to get extra power out of the flow as it made it's way to the aquifer.
     
  4. rkline56

    rkline56 USS Oklahoma City CG5

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,192
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    CA Norte Mexico, USA
    I don't know why they don't refill the aquifers either. They will help out the farmers of future generations and the water districts benefit since the evaporation is nil underground. Win - win all the way. The pipeline idea to the Southwest is also a good idea. The California aqueduct would not be a bad model either. Even the Romans had it down.

    Good luck to all the distressed folks out that way.

    I need to get back to Columbia Falls / GNP soon. It is a highly rejuvenating place.
     
  5. Victor Gomez

    Victor Gomez Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    115
    I am encouraged by your thoughts on this.........as Arizona is currently burning large areas of forest, Colorado has done so and New Mexico has as well...however that aquifer may not be the only place water could go. We need to do something for these places that do so badly in drought such as the old western town of Las Vegas New Mexico that has currently exhausted it's traditional water supply due to low rainfall and the town has implemented waste water recycling to try to keep a few things alive but really has no hope of "making it" with the current low reservoir levels in Storie Lake. There are huge amounts of water that flow away in many places that could be used in other places if there were ways of moving it around. Of course there is a lot of New Mexico that would take some pumping but we do have a lot of wind and sunlight that may help.........the difficulty is that a lot of places here are a mile high in elevation. We also have aquifers currently being exhausted such as one being used by the city of Gallup.
     
  6. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I have been traveled through, and actually stopped in Las Vegas NM once or twice as I was OTR trucking. That is a dry and bleak place without doubt, even without any expansion of population. Have they ever investigated the Roseville California recycling system? It doesn't of course produce "potable water", but with very little personal care I'm sure it would suffice (boiling, etc.). They (Roseville) have very little "input" in their water cycle, and seem to be managing better than most in a similar situation.
     
  7. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    Sounds like an excellent idea Clint. Makes sense to me.
     
  8. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    you have just been voted into the house of the interior Clint am sure parts of Texas would like a help out
     
  9. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,440
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    We in the Northern Territory (Northern Australia) get thousands of mm of rain every wet season and the mob down south moan and bleat every year about how they are on water restrictions and we're swimming in it! The old "pipeline" question gets trotted out every year...more so during drought. Three things knock the suggestion on the head every year...

    1. The shear volume of water and its large area means its too difficult to take from any one spot or spots.
    2. The Territory has had this sort of rain for a few million years...the area actually NEEDS that much water, thats what the contryside has adapted to. Take the water and the place (which makes us millions every year in tourism) would quickly die.
    3. The cost of such a pipeline and substations is very high...few state governments can agree on who foots the bill...

    You drain the place and the water table will drop and nothing can be grown. The sudden influx of water to new areas can raise the local water table and bring the salt along with it...before you know it you have a salinity problem (the trouble with funking with nature - who, has got it right).

    Instead, building the town or city up...and invest in quality drainage (also expensive from scratch).
     
  10. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,493
    Likes Received:
    1,929
    Check the total volume delivered by the Alaska Pipeline each year. Consider how that compares to what is needed. How many such pipelines would we need?
     
  11. Dauntless

    Dauntless Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    25
    Pipelines only to be used in case of flooding at any of the origin spots listed below (i.e.-a few years ago, we had excess water in SE Texas while Georgia had a drought)

    1) West coast-from inner Washington pumping down to California's San Joaquin valley

    2) At east base of the rockies, starting in Montana, pumping down to New Mexico. Gigantic retention ponds could be built somewhere on the east side of New Mexico.

    3) Dakota Express-North Dakota-down platte river, turning south to West Texas.

    4) St. Louis redirect- running south to a T shaped pipeline that runs west to east from just north of Houston to North Georgia. In case of a surplus in all three locations, pump the water into the Edwards aquifer through a connection to the Dakota express.
     

Share This Page