If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   One Californian ponders why snow in the east can't be hauled to CA to ease the drought. Another Californian wonders why this guy doesn't live in Florida   (sacbee.com) divider line 115
    More: Stupid, East Coast, droughts, March On, drought tolerance, snow  
•       •       •

5698 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 5:36 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 04:34:21 PM  
well setting aside the tremendous costs required to do it, it could be done but it is far from practical and even then all the snow on the ground in the US would not long fill whats needed out there.

Not to mention the snow melt water is needed in many places.
 
2014-03-03 04:54:40 PM  
Because we haul it to poland and sell it to them for clean fill.
 
2014-03-03 05:02:42 PM  
What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
std3.ru
 
2014-03-03 05:25:33 PM  
If it *really* gets bad, the Navy has ships that can desalinate a lot of water- I imagine that would be very expensive.
 
2014-03-03 05:27:52 PM  
If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.
 
2014-03-03 05:40:06 PM  
I don't believe any questions like these are "bad" questions. We Americans have accomplished some pretty amazing feats of engineering , so it's not surprising that some people to assume that difficult things are easier than they think.

Hell, almost every American assumes what they don't understand is easy.
 
2014-03-03 05:40:17 PM  
Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:01 PM  

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]


I have a better idea. Let your yard die.  The farms need the water more than your grass does
 
2014-03-03 05:42:17 PM  
OK Eddie, you win.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:22 PM  
What if they just dehydrated the water down, greatly reducing the weight for shipping?
 
2014-03-03 05:42:25 PM  
California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

/Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
 
2014-03-03 05:42:26 PM  

ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.


Michigan Air Force vs California Air Force....would bring new meaning to the "flyover states" in between.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:01 PM  
Well.. actually the water from the east will eventually make it's way to California.. given time.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:38 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.


Or nuclear power.
 
2014-03-03 05:43:41 PM  
So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?
 
2014-03-03 05:44:24 PM  

ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.


The treaty said nothing about snow
Read the fine print next time
 
2014-03-03 05:44:33 PM  
Trebuchet it.
 
2014-03-03 05:44:48 PM  
just paint a big red target over Sacramento & taunt passing comets to "hit the bulls eye".

drought solved.

you're welcome.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:00 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If only California were located near some large body of water.

Of course, that would be of no use unless you had abundant sunshine for desalinization.


Or some nice sheets of graphene.
Abundant sunshine or no, current desalination techniques are too energy-inefficient to be practical on such a large scale for anything but a last resort.  California is responsible for too much of the country's produce to fulfill our water needs using flash or RO desalination.  New nano-filters would change that, though.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:21 PM  

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?


That is actually probably much more cost-effective than trucks.

I think a better approach would be to send spaceships out to get large ice crystal from, say, Saturn's rings. I bet it would even be enough water to supply a settlement on another planet, say, Mars.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:22 PM  
Just need a network of heaters and pipes.

We do it for oil. No reason other than cost that we can't do it for water. It's just not worth it to do it. If/when it's worth it, they'll do it.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:30 PM  
Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.

This is also no doubt one of the many reasons Canada is pushing the Keystone oil pipeline instead of building one from Alberta to Vancouver.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:55 PM  
l.yimg.com
 
2014-03-03 05:45:58 PM  
Mostly, because it'd be insanely impractical. And, what happens when both places are having a drought? If you want water; lobby for desalination.
 
2014-03-03 05:47:07 PM  
Pipeline from Canada to California ala Keystone XL, all we need is to annex Canada.
 
2014-03-03 05:47:23 PM  

ShadowKamui: ytterbium: Lest anyone forgets, there is a compact amongst the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways, USA and Canada, that no one can take our water. I believe MI is prepared to use military force if needed.

The treaty said nothing about snow
Read the fine print next time


Snow melts, feeds the rivers and lakes. I know in some areas of the country you aren't allowed to use rain barrels because the rain belongs to the general watershed, not your land in particular.

/DNRTFA
 
2014-03-03 05:47:28 PM  
He might have some regrets about using his full name on a public site.
 
2014-03-03 05:50:36 PM  

Cerebral Ballsy: Just need a network of heaters and pipes.

We do it for oil. No reason other than cost that we can't do it for water. It's just not worth it to do it. If/when it's worth it, they'll do it.


wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.


:08 from simulpost.
 
2014-03-03 05:51:26 PM  

Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]


Not so far fetched.
 
2014-03-03 05:53:01 PM  

axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.


Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


Nemo's Brother: So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?


gifrific.com

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we grow your food.  California grows 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.
 
2014-03-03 05:53:10 PM  

JoieD'Zen: He might have some regrets about using his full name on a public site.


I doubt anyone dumb enough to ask that will realize that it was regrettable
 
2014-03-03 05:54:26 PM  
I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.
 
2014-03-03 05:54:53 PM  

Gawdzila: axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


As if anyone in the Midwest eats vegetables...
 
2014-03-03 05:55:03 PM  

vernonFL: If it *really* gets bad, the Navy has ships that can desalinate a lot of water- I imagine that would be very expensive.


Desal is actually fine for personal use near the coast though a tad expensive.  Works great in a place like Aruba.  The problem is maintaining heavy industry and agriculture and getting it all uphill to inland areas.  That would be crazy expensive.  I guess you could move all the heavy industry to the coasts, but you aren't moving the good land.
 
2014-03-03 05:55:28 PM  
No, you can't have our water.  Feel free to move here and pay taxes though.
 
2014-03-03 05:56:20 PM  

wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.



There is a pipeline through the Rocky Mountains from the eastern side of Colorado all the way west. My dad was involved in surveying it around 1957.
 
2014-03-03 05:56:54 PM  

Gawdzila: axeeugene: California can have our water when they pry it from our cold, cold, COLD dead hands.

The Great Lakes Compact is a wonderful thing.

You live in a place with no water? FARK OFF.

Okay, we'll see how you like the quintupled produce prices.


Nemo's Brother: So I guess California needs the fly over states more than they need California?

[gifrific.com image 245x285]

Hardly.  It's fairly symbiotic.  You give us water, we grow your food.  California grows 80% of the fruits and veggies for the country in general, and close to 100% of a lot of common specialty crops.  Oh, except feed corn and soybeans, of course.  You got that covered.


I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when the producers in California no longer have enough for the looters to seize and give to the moochers.  When you're out of water there won't be anything to take.  Then what?  Meltdown, riots, etc.  You do need us more than we need you.
 
2014-03-03 05:57:29 PM  
Stupid question really. That snow is already scheduled to be hauled out to sea to stop global warming.
 
2014-03-03 05:58:44 PM  
If we can build a space elevator surely we can build a snow conveyor across the country. We just to pull up our boot straps a bit.
 
2014-03-03 06:00:32 PM  
be all californy and innovate!

You can:

Create Fusion (sorry about the disaster of 2092)
Alter The Jet Stream (we're watching you in the midwest, and we have missile silos)
Buy Water from Aquifina and Let the Poors get "brownouts" (hmm... is #3 cool? are we cool?)

oh...

you could not shove millions of people in a desert (that's just CRAZY talk!)
 
2014-03-03 06:00:41 PM  
the #1 cost of desalinization is lifting the water above where it is being sent.   a plant that can desalinize 1,000,000 gallons per day (and there are 14 of them in California) needs to lift 1 million gallons each day.

the 2nd major cost is creating the pressure it takes to force the water through the filters that remove the salt.

the rest of the stuff is easy to do, removing the other contaminates both organinc and inorganic.

of course if California could put a HUGE greenhouse like structure over the Pacific Ocean, then they could cause water to "evaporate" and it would then form "clouds"    which produce "rain and snow".
 
2014-03-03 06:00:56 PM  

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply? Talk about stupid. If Cali doesn't get water from the surrounding sates we all take it in the a$$ every time we buy food.


Exactly. We should just grow all our fruits, veggies etc in Michigan, where there's an abundance of water.
 
2014-03-03 06:01:08 PM  

wxboy: Aside from the sheer amount you'd need to make a difference, I also occasionally hear people suggesting a pipeline to ship water to the West.  This is a practical impossibility too because of the amount of energy needed to get the water over the Rocky Mountains.  It would probably be more efficient just to build the desalinization plants.

This is also no doubt one of the many reasons Canada is pushing the Keystone oil pipeline instead of building one from Alberta to Vancouver.


For starters we already have oil pipelines from Alberta to Vancouver. The next big project to BC is the Northern Gateway Pipeline that takes oil from near Edmonton to Kitimat.
 
2014-03-03 06:01:54 PM  
The plan would be fine as long as you didn't mind paying as much for water as you do printer ink.

/move to where the water is?
 
2014-03-03 06:02:22 PM  
The Nino is what you guys need.
 
2014-03-03 06:02:26 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Mark Ratner: What about hooking up a giant outboard motor onto an iceberg, and moving it to California?
[std3.ru image 400x227]

I have a better idea. Let your yard die.  The farms need the water more than your grass does


Yes, water yards in a desert is retarded. No argument there. But this is the water use breakdown for CA.

www.environment.ucla.edu
 
2014-03-03 06:02:46 PM  
build a great big straw then Caliprunia can suck it
 
2014-03-03 06:04:21 PM  

30yrs2l8: I wonder how we have allowed 50% of the nations fruit and produce be to grown in a state that doesn't have its own adequate water supply?


Largely because California's high quality arable land, year-round growing climate, and variety of microclimates enable it to either get much higher yields for most crops, or to grow lots of things that other states really simply cannot grow effectively.  It's a reasonable arrangement to maximize the production from our available resources, assuming you aren't interested in engaging in some kind of ineffectual state-d*ck-waving contest like Smeggy Smurf up there.
 
2014-03-03 06:06:22 PM  
Wouldn't it be closer to get it from Alaska?
 
2014-03-03 06:08:07 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: You do need us more than we need you.


LOL.  Your ineffectual derp sustains me.
California needs IDAHO, LOL XD  Sure buddy. You go on potato'ing over there.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report