The Trans-America Water Grid: Not just for the arid west anymore

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:44:19 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Dec 21, 3:52 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

... It amazes me that folkes would argue against a
better water management system when we have so many problems with the
one(s) we have.

because, more often than not, when we **** with nature, it ultimately ****s
us back.....worse.
Tom

I guess I don't understand your meaning. Since when is man not a part
of nature and who said anything about ****ing with nature (at least
any more than we have to date)? If we are to exist as a species, in
any capacity, we will, invariably, completely and incessantly '****'
with nature. I guess the best we can hope to do is to do those things
that create a positive influence on our ability to manage the other
things properly. When you're in a mess of sewage and drought, well,
let's just say 'trout die' as a metaphor. In our panic to control
local and regional issues we do **** nature while simultaneously not
solving anything. Salmon get confused by the concrete and die without
spawning, again as a metaphor. So, it's flooding down in Texas (RIP
Stevie Ray) or in Louisiana and the water runs in to massive
underground tanks in the grid to reappear in North Carolina where the
cricks holding the beloved national treasure brookies would otherwise
dry up. Espousing an attitude of 'living in a cave' just won't git 'er
done.

Your pal,

TBone

As I understand it, one of, if not THE, reason(s) Atlanta is having
water "problems" is because there are too many people for the water
there (or that would be there if man hadn't attempted to "solve" a water
"problem") and man attempted to "fix" the situation to his liking. Man
also attempted to "fix" the "problems" perceived with the Mississippi
River and look what it has done to south Louisiana. And much of the
flooding in Texas is a result of man "solving" water problems. I'd
offer it would be much easier (and better) to redistribute man than the
water, or, if people simply insist on living in areas in which the
conditions are not to their liking, they are left to endure the
situation. If one doesn't want their home wiped out by a hurricane,
don't build that home on a beach in a hurricane zone. If one doesn't
want their home burned up in a wildfire, don't build it in a wildfire
zone. And if one doesn't like dry conditions, don't live in a dry area.
I strongly suspect the same sumbitches that makes some folks read posts
they absolutely don't wish to read and then bitch about the content
makes some folks live in areas they find not to their liking and then
bitch about the conditions...

Happy Holidays,
R

On Dec 22, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:44:19 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
On Dec 21, 3:52 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

... It amazes me that folkes would argue against a
better water management system when we have so many problems with the
one(s) we have.

because, more often than not, when we **** with nature, it ultimately ****s
us back.....worse.
Tom

I guess I don't understand your meaning. Since when is man not a part
of nature and who said anything about ****ing with nature (at least
any more than we have to date)? If we are to exist as a species, in
any capacity, we will, invariably, completely and incessantly '****'
with nature. I guess the best we can hope to do is to do those things
that create a positive influence on our ability to manage the other
things properly. When you're in a mess of sewage and drought, well,
let's just say 'trout die' as a metaphor. In our panic to control
local and regional issues we do **** nature while simultaneously not
solving anything. Salmon get confused by the concrete and die without
spawning, again as a metaphor. So, it's flooding down in Texas (RIP
Stevie Ray) or in Louisiana and the water runs in to massive
underground tanks in the grid to reappear in North Carolina where the
cricks holding the beloved national treasure brookies would otherwise
dry up. Espousing an attitude of 'living in a cave' just won't git 'er
done.

Your pal,

TBone

As I understand it, one of, if not THE, reason(s) Atlanta is having
water "problems" is because there are too many people for the water
there (or that would be there if man hadn't attempted to "solve" a water
"problem") and man attempted to "fix" the situation to his liking. Man
also attempted to "fix" the "problems" perceived with the Mississippi
River and look what it has done to south Louisiana. And much of the
flooding in Texas is a result of man "solving" water problems. I'd
offer it would be much easier (and better) to redistribute man than the
water, or, if people simply insist on living in areas in which the
conditions are not to their liking, they are left to endure the
situation. If one doesn't want their home wiped out by a hurricane,
don't build that home on a beach in a hurricane zone. If one doesn't
want their home burned up in a wildfire, don't build it in a wildfire
zone. And if one doesn't like dry conditions, don't live in a dry area.
I strongly suspect the same sumbitches that makes some folks read posts
they absolutely don't wish to read and then bitch about the content
makes some folks live in areas they find not to their liking and then
bitch about the conditions...

Happy Holidays,
R

As a practical matter dude, what, should we be nomadic? Washington
state was under water the other day. Should they all move? Or, are you
suggesting some aspect of drastic population reduction akin to The
Georgia Guidestones?

Your pal,

TBone

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:44:19 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

Washington state was under water the other day. Should they all move?
snip

Your pal,

TBone

No, Washington state wasn't underwater, a small portion of the western one
third of the state was underwater. Meanwhile, most of the other two thirds
of the state was as arid as Colorado. Why? Because a little thing like the
Cascade Range, which creates a rain shadow, means the dollar cost (let
alone the environmental costs) of man moving the "excess" water across the
mountains outweighs the benefits.

The majority of the residents on both sides of the mountains, though they
don't like the consequences of floods or drought, are not willing to
bankrupt themselves or totally disrupt their environment to change the
situation - unlike some idiots who are so arrogant that they propose fully
controlling a system, about which they have amply demonstrated cluelessness
and are incapable of even understanding how complex the system is.

Timmy,
Heres a hint to get you started on the road to enlightenment: You cannot
change JUST one thing in nature. The natural world is an interconnected web
of relationships, and we are only just beginning to understand how the parts
interact with each other and are affected by changes in other, even
seemingly unrelated, parts of the web.

Major changes (e.g. a national water grid) create major changes throughout
the entire system, most of which we can't even begin to anticipate. As you
stated earlier, man is a part of nature, but he is far less in control of it
or able to control it than most (especially people with your mindset) seem
to think. And no, that doesn't mean we should retreat to caves and be
afraid to change anything. It just means that before we undertake massive
changes ( e.g. national water grids, atomic bombs, etc.) with potentially
even more massive consequences than intended, we should think long & hard
about the risks versus the rewards, and discard those ideas that, even with
our limited knowledge of the situation, don't pencil out.

Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR

Bob Weinberger wrote:
No, Washington state wasn't underwater, a small portion of the western one
third of the state was underwater. Meanwhile, most of the other two thirds
of the state was as arid as Colorado. Why? Because a little thing like the
Cascade Range, which creates a rain shadow, means the dollar cost (let
alone the environmental costs) of man moving the "excess" water across the
mountains outweighs the benefits.

Yeah, but Bob, the Columbia moves a WHOLE LOT of water from one
side of the Cascades to the other.

So, see, if we just had a big switch, and turned it around for 8
hours a day.....

- JR
(always glad to be of help)

wrote in message
...
If one doesn't want their home wiped out by a hurricane,
don't build that home on a beach in a hurricane zone. If one doesn't
want their home burned up in a wildfire, don't build it in a wildfire
zone. And if one doesn't like dry conditions, don't live in a dry area.
I strongly suspect the same sumbitches that makes some folks read posts
they absolutely don't wish to read and then bitch about the content
makes some folks live in areas they find not to their liking and then
bitch about the conditions...

Happy Holidays,
R

and Happy Holidays to you, as well.....and God bless you for having the
enduring patience to explain to Tim what should have been obvious all along.
By the way, Tim, what happens to biodiversity when we even all the water
out?? I suppose in your world-view, the actual environment doesn't matter,
it just exists for you to tinker with to YOUR idea of ideality. In mine, I
don't know for sure, but suspect that the variation in climate and such
within the system might well serve some purpose that I don't understand.
Thus, I am reluctant to try and "fix" something whose workings I don't know,
and know absolutely......especially given that I am not the only lifeform
sharing that system.
Tom

On Dec 22, 2:02*pm, JR wrote:
Bob Weinberger wrote:
No, Washington state wasn't underwater, a small portion of the western one
third of the state was underwater. *Meanwhile, most of the other two thirds
of the state was as arid as Colorado. Why? *Because a little thing like the
Cascade Range, which creates a rain shadow, *means the dollar cost *(let
alone the environmental costs) of man moving the "excess" water across the
mountains outweighs the benefits.

Yeah, but Bob, the Columbia moves a WHOLE LOT of water from one
side of the Cascades to the other.

So, see, if we just had a big switch, and turned it around for 8
hours a day.....

- JR
(always glad to be of help)

The big switch is in the sky.. From here to far north Canokastan the
gray clouds go east almost daily. They drop a little rain here but
most carry water over the mountains to the headwaters of the
Columbia.
If we could only find a way to put the clouds in big bags and tow them
down south.

Speaking of floods the Bretz floods may not have been the biggest that
ever happened. Here's is an interesting artical about the Kuray-
Altari mountain floods in Siberia and Central Asia.
http://www.mines.edu/academic/geolog...docs/Altai.pdf

wrote:
snip
If one doesn't want their home wiped out by a hurricane,
don't build that home on a beach in a hurricane zone. If one doesn't
want their home burned up in a wildfire, don't build it in a wildfire
zone. And if one doesn't like dry conditions, don't live in a dry area.
I strongly suspect the same sumbitches that makes some folks read posts
they absolutely don't wish to read and then bitch about the content
makes some folks live in areas they find not to their liking and then
bitch about the conditions...

Well said, but somehow I don't believe common sense will ever
intrude on TBone.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Hey...I live near Lake Erie...I have a 65 gallon water tank you could use to
haul water back and forth................

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 1:36 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...15/missed_1216...

Your pal,

TBone

So, help us out here........should the folks in Atlanta be sending you
water? Or are you volunteering to fill up the back of your car and head
east?

Wolfgang

No, I'm saying that there is always too much water somewhere and not
enough somewhere else. This year saw record rainfall and flooding in
Texas. This is a simple (well, solvable) plumbing problem. I am
astounded that we do not have a reliable water grid. There is no
excuse. I believe we need a new CCC. Instead of Iraq we build the
water grid.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tom Littleton wrote:
"jeff" wrote
speaking of that...have you set the penns dates yet? need to get my
secured leave established for 2008.

the week leading up to Memorial Day. Secure away, my friend.

Top three dries to tie for that week?

March Brown?
Gray Fox?
?

- JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Top three dries to tie for that week?

March Brown?
Gray Fox?
?

- JR

1. Sulfurs
2. Sulfurs
3 Sulfurs

sure, carry March Browns,Tan Caddis, Green Drakes
and Grey Foxes, spinners for all, terrestrials and stonefly nymphs, too. Did
I mention Sulfurs?
Tom