Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Why Can't Flood Water Get Hauled to Drought-Stricken Land?

There’s too much water in one part of the U.S. and not enough in another, so why not move it? This concept is on the minds of quite a few Texans (including me). While the East Coast battles flood waters from Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene, the central part of the U.S. has been isolated from rain salvation.

A few sprinkles of rain have been scattered throughout the central U.S., but not enough to counter drought effects. One part of nation suffering the most from severe drought is Texas. Over the last l0 months much of Central and East Texas alone experienced precipitation deficits exceeding 20 inches. With 95 percent of the state in extreme drought and 81 percent of the state exceptional drought status, the conditions are expected to worsen without water. Before the Lone Star state is cleared from extreme drought status, it needs over 15 inches of rainfall.

The lack of rain has caused the state to burst into flames, literally – with temperatures topping the triple digits most of the summer, the threat of wildfires now plagues most of East Texas. Burn bans have been issued for 250 of the 254 Texas counties due to spread of wildfires, according to the Texas Forest Service. As of Sept. 5, wildfires consumed roughly 3.6 million acres in Texas destroying nearly 1,200 homes.

While severe dry conditions spread throughout the Central U.S., persistent rain across the Northeast has cities drowned under water. First Hurricane Irene, then Tropical Storm Lee, it seems the East Coast can’t catch a break. Parts of Pennsylvania are experiencing the worst flooding in nearly 40 years. With more than a foot of rain dumped into rivers from Louisiana to New York, rivers and lakes are overflowing leaving cities in ruins. Thanks to the constant downpour, President Obama declared 42 counties in Pennsylvania and 15 in New York disaster areas.

Why not attempt to answer each region’s problem by hauling water from one place to another?

Apparently, this isn’t a foreign thought for water industry professionals.According to Associated Press, French engineers have simulated transporting an iceberg to Africa and there are even mega-trash bags, known as Spragg Bags, with the capability to move heavy loads of water. But the major issue is cost, Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Studies Institute told the Associated Press.

Critics say that that moving water from one area to another, thousands of miles away, is just “unrealistic.” With enough money anything can be done – maybe not move the flood water to drought-stricken regions, but perhaps find closer water sources and explore the idea of wastewater reclamation. Big Spring, Texas is taking advantage of its option to convert wastewater into drinking water and maybe more parts of the country should to help alleviate the drought issue and drain some of the flood water into usable fluid. Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn’t always evenly distribute environmental effects, so attempting to create man made solutions is all we can do – and perhaps a bit of expensive, “unrealistic” creativity will save homes and lives.

Posted by Christina Miralla on Sep 21, 2011 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Wed, Mar 6, 2013 Manny west coast

The two states above my own receive a amence amount of rain and snow fall. If on a C S X freight train, one gallon of fuel provides 500 miles of travel and there is already a railway.Would'nt it make sence to have open cars to catch rain and snow fall. Then when full ,travel straight to crops or water treament plants local to the farms and use already exsiting pipelines for irragation. The cost ; you ask.This ideal is more cost effective then having to endure the loss of crops , livestock and the most important the farmer (forclosures).

Wed, Feb 20, 2013 Paul Hembury Oxford England

During the industrial revolution in England, thousands of miles of interconnecting canal networks were created by engineers using knowledge and equipment that was state of the art. Those endeavours have stood the test of time. We now have the technological advantage of computers, satellite generated topography, digging and earthmoving equipment that can achieve in one day what it took thousands of " Navvies" to achieve in months. canal networks with lock gates and sensor monitoring could be used as a water transfer regulator. The benefits... mass employment taking healthy young men off state benefits, environmental, agricultural and residential protection, road congestion easing , goods haulage and leisure activities with canal transport all generating revenue and taxes. Flood disasters will be a thing of the past, good irrigation will provide good quality controlled agricultural produce keeping costs down and the nation fed. Most of these networks are in existence, the disused networks simply need renovating,improving to today's needs and standards. Intercontinental networks can then be joined by pipe networks or cross border canal connection. If the G20 wanted to do this they could....easily.. cost is not an issue as the savings and improvement would have lifelong returns and benefits. Take a look at military budgets, space exploration and some science budgets like the hadron collider , then tell me there's no money. Our ability to research all of these things would be easier if we made our planet and our populations happier and healthier first.

Tue, Feb 12, 2013 shivangi india

these i was thinking since i was a child..when one corner of our contry facing drought and one with heavy flood...i was thinking why cant make a pipeline to my part when another part is flooding...if its possible by any other way...my nation's half of the problem will get solved....i wish tht comes soon...and i dnt think it will b costlier than any political election n moon expenses...

Thu, Aug 23, 2012 aquarius earth

cant flood waters be filtered through transfer and if not can flood waters be transfered far enough to help fight fires in california if we can send a rover to mars spending enough money for something to benefit us here theres nothing up there to benefit us down here.

Sun, Jul 29, 2012 Pat Tester Sales UK

Have thought about this for years. Seems such a straight forward but admittedly costly procedure. But 2 comments on here struck me. 1- if we can ship or pipe oil, which is a liquid, around the world then why not water. 2- if water was as expensive as oil then this would have happened decades ago. As the Olympics have just had the opening ceremony, as much as I enjoyed it, the cost for a 3 hour ceremony was £27million. So to say governments would not be able to afford it is an insult, even in these hard times. Geographically I know we can't predict the next flood or drought or but after all our experience on this planet, we do have a very good idea. It does not have to be flooded areas to get started, just somewhere we know we get above average or excess wanted rainfall. Then feed that water to the dry areas, purify and treat. (sure water treatment is already in place for the small amount of rain they currently get) Too simple.......maybe. Impossible.......definitely not. All the money spent on space exploration, would be small change for this project. May aid in flood prevention or at least easing, will definitely help drought stricken areas around the world. Save life's, generate employment and bring together countries either through generosity or supplying well need supplies........water Simple.

Sun, Jul 15, 2012

I've been giving this issue a lot of thought recently and I keep asking myself why can't this country use rail tanker cars while the pipeline is being built? Have tanker cars in four corners of the country so when there is a flood they can mobilize them quickly. This flood water could be used to fight fires or fill up dried up ponds and lakes. Have the places that are about to be flooded start filling the tankers ahead of the predicted flood waters so that they have a head start on the flood and haul that water to the driest part of the country. This would involve a lot of man hours and create temporary jobs while a pipeline is being built which would create jobs. Either way we are losing money, crops, housing and cattle when it floods or drought and nothing gets accomplished.

Wed, Mar 14, 2012 Bob Iowa

Another lesson in geography. Any extra water from the Mississippi River is not at the upper Mississippi it is at the gulf. A lot of towns and communities draw drinking water from the river and the world depends on the transportation of goods from the Mississippi River barge traffic. Environmentalist have been warning us of rising sea levels. Doesn't Texas has a lot of shore line? Hum water bordering the state.

Thu, Mar 8, 2012 Dick Hogan Ventura Cty

Our patented method would use gravity flow to the max and adapt most existing and new SCADA driven devices and gages to control by regions a real-time connected network in concert with existing emergency federal and local agencies. It targets reduction of floods currently costing $250Bil/year in FEMA claims plus private insurance claims over twice that. (25,000 new jobs all self-paid) The US has good intra-coastal waterway of Miss and her tributaries plus gulf-coast Tampa to Brownsville and all ports in between. We can fill the empty lakes, reservoirs and then some!. New purification methods will mirror LA's low flow diversion technique that needs to be looked at on the Internet-it is fantastic to add massive flows, not only for coastal restoration but in other locations to restore the groundwaters of the US and its 800,000 wells with potable drinkable water in our lifetime. (Forgot this.)

Thu, Mar 8, 2012 Dick Hogan Camarllo, CA 93012

We have patented a process that is designed to use existing streamflow gages of FEMA, USGS and USACE locations. It can predict flood point in time based on rise of flows and time frames. It will eventually and compliantly have ideally placed trained capture teams to be dispatched upstream 1500 plus yards to preplanned sites for diversion to existing or rapid setup "instant reservoirs" of multiple size and terrain capability. I will send additional info to appropriate questions but space here is precious.

Wed, Nov 16, 2011

We'd be better off building de-salinization facilities powered by renewable energy and requiring wastewater to be recycled back to the user in a as-near-as-possible closed-loop sanitary/drinking water system (the open portion of the loop would be from agriculture, which would have to switch to a drip irrigation standard to prevent water loss) This would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars...the price to pay for living in this type of area...

Wed, Oct 5, 2011 JAMES KAHLE WESTCHESTER, ILLINOIS

"JIMMY" is absolutely correct. If the Chinese can do 3 gorges we should be able to divert the mississippi to the drought striken west and produce crops and save our economy. This is a stimulus plan that actually makes sense. Think big.

Wed, Oct 5, 2011 Bill Suncook NH

Jimmy, that sounds great but what about all the raw sewage, desease laden materials, and other toxins (which may include nuclear waste, decomposed bodies, oil sludge, etc.) that may get into these waters during major floods. You want to feed those animals and crops for human consumption with that stuff. We would also need to build a whole bunch of waste water treatment plants and hope they can filter all that stuff out of the water.

Tue, Oct 4, 2011

When water reaches $80 per barrel, then the free market will build pipelines to distribute the surplus water.

Wed, Sep 28, 2011 plumbing supplies http://www.bes.co.uk/

Water flood might due to the improper flow of water from mountains.

Tue, Sep 27, 2011 Jimmy Oceanside, Ca

Looking at a topographical map of the USA, which I encourage everyone to do, I believe it is possible to divertexcess flood waters from one region to another in our nation. The Cost about in my estimate a trillion and a hall dollars ($1,500,000,000,000.00) for the basic infra structure and another couple of billion dollars a year for maintenance, upkeep and operations. This can be done by equal contributions by all the states. Why? If you look at the price of your commodities, food and other items made here in the USA and where they are either produced or made water was most likely a part of its production in some intregal component either directly or indirectly. Just recently we've seen a spike in the cost of common raised goods in states affected by both floods and drought, because both have destroyed crops or have prevented water from getting to the necessary growth of plants or animals. If one took those costs and other damage related cost to droughts and floods and combined them together fo say a decade I bet it would far exceed this trillion and half mark. And this money is either unreaped. lost impacted and having to be replaced with questionable loans that may for bankruptcies or foreclosures which would compound this trillion and half figure to multiple levels and times. So economically it would make sense to have all the states come together and build this great water compensation safety system now because it would serve an additional purpose: millions of American Jobs! and woe to any politician that tries too outsource this one....

Tue, Sep 27, 2011 Don Indianapolis

You may need to brush up on your geography. The east coast areas that are receiving flood-inducing rains are east of tha Appalachian Mtns. You would first have to build pipelines from those areas to the headwaters of the Ohio and then additional pipelines from wherever along the Mississippi River to get this water to Texas. I have NO idea of the cost involved, but am sure it is huge. Cost-benefit analysis might be helpful here to see if that is a realistic approach.

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 Ron Lewis Baltimore, United States

Late 19th century to early 20th century, people believed that an intelligent Martian civilization had built a vast network of irrigation canals to transport water over the surface of Mars. That belief turned out to be untrue. However, the idea might be a very beneficial project for the United States.

Wed, Sep 21, 2011

Are we saying that the 1,200 homes lost in Texas (and the many more in other states) that were destroyed by fire, the cost of fighting these fires, the American crops & cattle lost, and the lack of tourism to parts of these states cost less than running a water pipeline from the upper Mississippi (sp) to the southwest? The losses over several years must be more. We move oil thousands of miles but we can't move water to help one area and alleviate others. Maybe we just need to pipe the water to the head-waters of the rivers that flow towards the Gulf.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above