I heard a very good idea, today on the Norman Goldman radio show, about creating the National Water Irrigation System. It is an awesome idea to funnel rain waters from various flood regions and pump it towards areas of drought.

No matter how huge of a National Water Irrigation System built it will not be able to collect all the rain water.

A variety of cisterns storage tanks aid in the collection of water. Cisterns tanks can help retain water for local irrigation too. Once the high water mark is reached inside the cistern it will automatically pump water to the National Water Irrigation System.

The initial targeted areas would be areas known for flooding. (For example: North East Region) Or locally states sharing water resources: North Dakota shares with Montana or Alabama shares with Mississippi.

The National Water Irrigation System is designed to prevent flooding and use overflow or runoff water productive and prevent environmental destruction. No more politician saying, “We will help you rebuild (through federal loan programs).” The local area would be first served by the National Water Irrigation System. Natural over flow from cistern collection would push water into the National Water Irrigation System. In areas that use levees once the high water mark is hit water would be pushed into the National Water Irrigation System.

Coal and sand filters would be recycled in regions where the water originated from to keep micro-organisms balance.

Solar and wind farms would create energy for the National Water Irrigation System.

The National Water Irrigation System would have to be buried under ground to prevent from ice damage.

This system uses steel and coal (two big industries that will generate revenue from this idea).

Construction for a National Water Irrigation System would create millions of jobs; and also permanently create jobs to maintain the system.

This idea helps feed the poor by stabilizing the food supply by supplying water to the farms (not chemicals or GMO crops. Supplying non-food product to the poor is not feeding the poor it is poisoning the poor).

Payment and initial investment sell environmental bonds. The famers pay for the water used on their crops and consumers buy the food. Locally grown food is a national security issue too (no locally grown food we become slaves to world).

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuir.html

Comments

pkrause12249 5 years 5 weeks ago
#1

Do not let a 1,000 year old idea allow for separation for today. Divided we can be conquered; united people focused on quality of life for their family is unstoppable.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321 5 years 1 day ago
#2

I would want a guarantee that after the taxpayers have built and paid for it - it would not be "privatised" so that lazy bastards could take some of the retained ill-gotten gains from prior thefts and purchase it at a huge discount so they could make an unnecessary profit from other peoples good ideas and hard work.

I would like the law that creates it to include an irrevocable clause that makes it a felony to even suggest privatising it.

Aside from that, water we waiting for?

pkrause12249 4 years 26 weeks ago
#3

1876 City of Rochester started to use a lake and continues to use the lake today for water supply.

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589936601

Sacramento Dave's picture
Sacramento Dave 4 years 26 weeks ago
#4

If we were to collect all the rainwater from the sky, our rivers, and wetlands would be left dry. Our nation's industrial polluters would no longer have rivers to use as sewers and to discharge over 113,000 tons of toxic waste into our rivers each year. An even larger quantity of nitrates and chemical fertilizers is discharged by the way of storm water runoff from our agricultural sources. Our rivers and wetlands would be left dry. The flora and fauna found there would be gone forever. Migrating birds would die off and disappear. We are already collecting and re-purposing more rainwater than our natural ecosystems can endure.

In California alone, reservoirs collect every available drop and the state tries to distribute it throughout this thirsty state as fairly as possible, keeping in mind and trying to delicately balance the needs of farmers, residents, and environmental responsibility. Even so, The mighty Colorado River runs dry, before it empties into the ocean. The waters of the Klamath are diverted from their course to the sea, through a tunnel into California's great central valley, and are unable to support the once massive runs of salmon. Due to the proliferation of dams, salmon in the central valley are no longer to reach their historic spawning grounds, so the majority of those left are bred and raised in a few hatcheries, prone to disease and epidemic die offs.

So more water is now being drawn from the Colorado River than is flowing into it and upstream states like Utah are trying to grab even more water through a new pipeline.

Well, it may sound like a great idea to pipe water from the Mississippi River across the Rocky mountains and several other ranges to feed the Colorado Watershed, the Great Basin and California. But have you considered the fact that the the Mississippi River and the Ohio River are the two most polluted rivers in the nation? Without periodic flushing of the rivers with flood waters, their waters would become clogged with toxic algae overgrowths, nuroushed by fertilizer rich agricultural runoff, industrial nitrates and domestic (somewhat treated) sewage. The pollution in the Mississippi is already causing a gigantic dead zone where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Would we reall y want to shift that pollution to the farmlands in the west.

Well, then, perhaps we could persuade Canada to let up tap into their great MacKenzie River that flows north through pristine wilderness to the Arctic Ocean ? Oh, I forgot. The Athabasca Tar Sands are being mined at the MacKenzie River's headwaters, and leaving that watershed poisoned as well.

So a national irrigation system would need massive pipelines in place in each flood prone area to quickly draw down water as it nears flood stage. (The landowners there certainly wouldn't want their land turned into reservoirs, pipelines and canals. Then there is the challenge of where to plan to draw down the water. Do we plan for a 100 year flood, or a 500 year flood ? And how fast do we plan to suck it all up and remove it ? How do we plan to send it across the plains and across the mountains ? Whose land must we take by eminent domain and how much will it cost. And what if the climate changes and that 100 year or that 500 year flood never comes? Or what if it floods somewhere other than where we built our intakes and pump stations?

All in all, such a national irrigation system has too many variables involved to be realistic. It may make for a thought provoking TV show, but in reality, I think it sounds like nothing more than a pipe dream.

Legend 4 years 20 weeks ago
#6

In California alone, reservoirs collect every available drop and the state tries to distribute it throughout this thirsty state as fairly as possible, keeping in mind and trying to delicately balance the needs of farmers, residents, and environmental responsibility. Even so, The mighty Colorado River runs dry, before it empties into the ocean.

I saw a video where thay started to let the Colorado flow to Mexico to replenish the delta. Not a lot but enough to help.

pkrause12249 3 years 45 weeks ago
#8

South Carolina is flooding and USA Today did the math add said that water could end the drought in California.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/06/11-trillion-gallons-wat...

pkrause12249 3 years 44 weeks ago
#9

To run water from Alaska based on the Alaskan pipeline figures and adjusted for inflation and distance... the cost to run a water pipe line from Alaska to California is about $100 billion dollars over 10 years of construction a distance of about 2500 miles.

The states of Washington and Oregon may connect into the water supply too.

British Columbia, Canada will have the option to connect and allow us to run water over their land. If Canada was okay with XL pipeline for Oil...I hope they would be fine with just water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System

pkrause12249 3 years 16 weeks ago
#10

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/14/shipping-water-alaska-c...

California wants to ship water from Alaska to California for about $500 million a year. With no pipeline in ten years California will have spent $5 billion with no other solution. California is farmland and a population about 10% of the United States of America. Something must be done to help farmers and keep America's food supply stable.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Come Cruise with Thom Hartmann in July 2020

Join me for an exciting Bermuda getaway aboard Oceania Cruises, the world’s leading culinary and destination-focused cruise line. Set sail on the reimagined Insignia for 7 nights beginning July 25th 2020. Take advantage of Oceania Cruises’ OLife Choice promotion, where you can choose shore excursions, a beverage package, or onboard credit – Oceania Cruises also includes Wifi! You'll also receive complimentary gratuities, a $50 onboard credit and two exclusive cocktail parties. Did I mention we are planning special onboard events with yours truly? Prices start at $1199.

Reserve your stateroom today by contacting Keene Luxury Travel, and mention the Thom Hartmann Group 800.856.1155

or go to https://www.keeneluxurytravel.com/th-bermuda/default.asp

How Did the America Media Miss the "Pro-Life" Movement Isn't about Saving Life - But - Is About Women Under the Thumbs of Men?

Thom plus logo Anti-abortion groups want you to believe they're all about saving "unborn" human lives, but a new poll shows that, for the majority of abortion rights opponents, that's a lie. The "pro-life" movement, it turns out, is fundamentally about keeping women down - a sentiment that's even shared by a majority of women who support forced pregnancies.