Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NBC News)   That giant sucking sound you hear is Texas water going south. They took our dihydrogen monoxide   (nbcnews.com) divider line 210
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

13155 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 8:04 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 03:21:05 AM  
I guess Harold and the whole gang up at Possum Lodge need to keep a better eye on the lakes.
media2.s-nbcnews.com
 
2014-07-16 03:50:24 AM  

kortex: Derrrr derrr durrrrrr


^ Does Fark have a new translation feature? Because usually some other poster has to boil down these posts to their essence.
 
2014-07-16 03:57:50 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: [media.tumblr.com image 500x272]

DURKA DUR!


This.
 
2014-07-16 04:01:17 AM  
If only there was some way to economically desalinate water from the ocean.  Perhaps use the power of a nearby star?
 
2014-07-16 05:34:27 AM  

Drunk Astronaut: If only there was some way to economically desalinate water from the ocean.  Perhaps use the power of a nearby star?


Nope. Because even if you do that part economically (it's expensive as hell with current technology) you have to pump water uphill. And you have to get rid of tons of toxic salt.
 
2014-07-16 06:48:44 AM  

UberDave: I know who can get some water for them...


[img.fark.net image 500x302]


Yeah, but it might come with space herpies.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Not in California is doesn't. Nestle's Arrowhead is pumping water from aquifers out in the desert, and because the land is owned by Native American tribes, there's zero oversight as to how much water they are taking.


Why do you want to ake rights from Native Americans?


kvinesknows: and yet the red river (northern) and the Mississippi flood almost every year... why not divert the excess to the aquifer ?


Wow...

Nevermind the logistics of getting the water there, and other surrounding lands that use the overflow of thsoe rivers, do you thin aquifers are just big empty caverns you can just "divert" water into?
 
2014-07-16 06:57:23 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: KarmicDisaster: I like the way that they are "pumping the last drops". Then they can try shootin the ground.

Everyone in Texas is against conservation of water, because it would cost jobs.


There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas. When places flood, the water goes from there to a resevoir near the drought areas, thereby reducing or eliminating flooding, and increasing water in places that need it. Also, would generate a LOT of jobs, similar to the public works projects FDR procured.
 
2014-07-16 07:27:37 AM  

liam76: kvinesknows: and yet the red river (northern) and the Mississippi flood almost every year... why not divert the excess to the aquifer ?


Wow...

Nevermind the logistics of getting the water there, and other surrounding lands that use the overflow of thsoe rivers, do you thin aquifers are just big empty caverns you can just "divert" water into?


when the rivers overflow... they pretty much just fark everyone over all along the way to the ocean.

logistics smogisttics.  getting the water to the aquifer is a few hundred miles from either watershed.  not a problem.

they are essentially holes waiting to be filled.. yes..... difficult? perhaps.,, easier than losing million of sq miles of farmland?  yes.
 
2014-07-16 07:44:32 AM  
If the American Breadbasket cannot help supply ever-growing food demands, billions could starve.

Exaggerate much?
 
2014-07-16 08:19:54 AM  

Stone Meadow: Rik01: And still, people pour into my city yearly. Traffic has become a nightmare. Decades old citrus groves have been sold and turned into housing complexes. Drainage ditches which used to run with shallow, clear water, like creeks and streams, now run with murky, dark waters, deeper and more foul.

People were saying that about you when you showed up.


No, he is different....


kvinesknows: when the rivers overflow... they pretty much just fark everyone over all along the way to the ocean.


http://www.collegian.com/2013/09/river-flooding-can-be-an-ecological- b enefit/43892/

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/floods.html

kvinesknows: logistics smogisttics. getting the water to the aquifer is a few hundred miles from either watershed. not a problem.


Yeah huge problem.

The water doesn;t pop up at one spot where it can be conveniently piped, nor is it a constant rate which is what is reauired to pipe it effectively.

kvinesknows: they are essentially holes waiting to be filled.. yes.....


No. Do you think oil sits in big undeground lakes too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well.


What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2014-07-16 08:25:35 AM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Something like 80% of the water use in California goes to agriculture, and because the water is subsidized, its so cheap that they'd rather flood a grove of trees than use drip or other more efficient irrigation methods.


Insane. I don't know that I have seen much (if any) row watering in this region in years.

ElLoco: The guy from Vega is just a dirt farmer who grows as much for insurance as for forage.


Insurance farmers...I know a few of them too.

nyseattitude: You are letting corporations and the wealthy take your water supplies from you


You might be surprised to learn how much of that is recycled for reuse. Farming has about a 0% reclamation rate.
 
2014-07-16 09:12:10 AM  
I used to live in Texas (and still really love it), but f*ck 'em.  This is what happens when you keep voting in politicians who deny climate change.
 
2014-07-16 09:32:50 AM  

Rik01: It's ironic, but everything I have been yelling and ranting about caused by over population, for years, is starting to show up.


Preach on brother, preach on. Humans have demonstrated that we are simply very poor managers, whether of our natural resources, political parties or even our own reproduction... and then the sheeple wonder "whats happening?"
 
2014-07-16 10:00:11 AM  

liam76: kvinesknows: they are essentially holes waiting to be filled.. yes.....

No. Do you think oil sits in big undeground lakes too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Crude as it may have been put, kvinesknows has a point...water CAN be diverted into aquifers for storage until it is needed, and in fact this is done on an industrial scale in numerous places in the USA. I lived in Tucson some 20 years ago, where the water department routinely pumps excess water into the Avra Valley and Santa Cruz River aquifers for later retrieval and use. The canal that brings water from the Colorado River carries more than the city needs during the rainy seasons, but less than it needs during the dry seasons (two each per year). The water has to flow continuously, though and cannot be "surged", so the water department continuously manages where the water is sent as it arrives in Tucson, either into the mains or into the aquifer, from where it is later repumped to the surface as needed.

This is not to suggest pumping water from the Mississippi River to the high planes to recharge aquifers for grow grass for range cattle is a good idea, but it is certainly technically feasible. In the end it all boils down to how valuable the end product is.
 
2014-07-16 10:24:09 AM  

fusillade762: This sentiment is also reflected in the state's water law, based on the concept of "right to capture." In short, if you own the land, you and only you own the water.

Ah yes, that corollary of the sacred "I got mine, f*ck you." rule.


Except that I can drink your milkshake if I'm on the same aquifer.  (If I have a straw.)
 
2014-07-16 10:27:06 AM  

Stone Meadow: The canal that brings water from the Colorado River carries more than the city needs during the rainy seasons, but less than it needs during the dry seasons (two each per year). The water has to flow continuously, though and cannot be "surged", so the water department continuously manages where the water is sent as it arrives in Tucson, either into the mains or into the aquifer, from where it is later repumped to the surface as needed.


Look closer. It isn't sent "into" the aquifer, as in pumped. It is directed to streams or basins.

The Ogallala Aquifer is mostly covered by an impermeable layer which makes just having it sit there not feasible.


Stone Meadow: This is not to suggest pumping water from the Mississippi River to the high planes to recharge aquifers for grow grass for range cattle is a good idea, but it is certainly technically feasible.



If you are only looking at flood water? No it isn't.

It works where you are because the water is there anyway, they are just diverting it to local basins where it will eventually soak back to the aquifer.


The articel mentions that pumping is possible, but I have never seenit first hand, and you woudl be very limited into how much you could pump into one well at one time. If you are dealing with cyclical flood water (which is next to impossible to get there) you are going to have to have a means to store it on the surface in the interim.
 
2014-07-16 10:27:28 AM  

kvinesknows: and yet the red river (northern) and the Mississippi flood almost every year... why not divert the excess to the aquifer ?


different watershed
 
2014-07-16 10:29:39 AM  

HeadLever: And I have been assured by Fark Libs that the government would take care of us all.


No you weren't.
 
2014-07-16 10:36:41 AM  
The really sad part is that all this water is used to irrigate commodity crops. The US now has 200 acres under cultivation for commodity crops (corn, wheat, soybeans, etc) for every one acre under cultivation for all fruits and vegetables. Agricultural scientists have been warning for years that this is not sustainable, even without global warming. Worse, the US is becoming increasingly dependent of other countries for our non-commodity foods. But corporate agribusiness (primarily Monstano, ADM, and Cargill), which now writes almost all of our agricultural policy, doesn't care about anything but mega-profits. Unfortunately, we cannot thrive on HFCS, soy lecithin, and wheat flour.
 
2014-07-16 10:57:07 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Something like 80% of the water use in California goes to agriculture, and because the water is subsidized, its so cheap that they'd rather flood a grove of trees than use drip or other more efficient irrigation methods.

Insane. I don't know that I have seen much (if any) row watering in this region in years.

ElLoco: The guy from Vega is just a dirt farmer who grows as much for insurance as for forage.

Insurance farmers...I know a few of them too.

nyseattitude: You are letting corporations and the wealthy take your water supplies from you

You might be surprised to learn how much of that is recycled for reuse. Farming has about a 0% reclamation rate.



No, the volume of water recycled from fracking isn't surprising at all. The industry made recycling claims in 2013 that have yet to come to fruition. Also, considering they will not disclose all the chemicals used in the fracking process, it's impossible to determine if they have been removed from recycled water.

In the meantime water limits and bans are imposed on people due to droughts.

February 4, 2014,
Study: In Midst of Drought, Fracking Industry Does Little to Recycle Water


Unlike fracking we need food to exist. A simple cost-benefit analysis would indicate the cost of water consumption is a beneficial requirement for farming.
 
2014-07-16 10:59:36 AM  

Lsherm: Brontes: The EPA should come down on bottled water companies like a ton of bricks for wasting resources, both water and vast amounts of fuel.

Yes, the story is about farming, but damn we waste a lot of water in other ways.

Or we could encourage people to move out of the farking desert.

/just a thought.


To where exactly? You planning to relocate the entire southwest around the Great Lakes? Think the Great Lakes people are OK with that idea?
 
2014-07-16 11:10:22 AM  
Build a couple of nuclear reactors. Desalinate all the water you want/need.

Problem solved.
 
2014-07-16 11:14:05 AM  

People_are_Idiots: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: KarmicDisaster: I like the way that they are "pumping the last drops". Then they can try shootin the ground.

Everyone in Texas is against conservation of water, because it would cost jobs.

There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas. When places flood, the water goes from there to a resevoir near the drought areas, thereby reducing or eliminating flooding, and increasing water in places that need it. Also, would generate a LOT of jobs, similar to the public works projects FDR procured.


Your father has obviously never been in an actual flood. When the Mississippi floods, the flow rate is on the order of millions of gallons of water per SECOND. If you were going to save that water for future use, you'd need pipes 40ft in diameter, and I have no idea how you'd pump that much water to where you need it. The problem is that you can go from flood to low water levels in a month, so your pipe system would be competing with a large river to get rid of that water.
 
2014-07-16 11:15:55 AM  

People_are_Idiots: There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas


And what is going to power the massive pump stations needed to get this water up and over the Continental Divide?  Do you know how expensive it would make this water?

Want to know how I know you are not a water resources engineer?
 
2014-07-16 11:17:04 AM  

Graffito: No you weren't.


I see you missed the rest of my posts.
 
2014-07-16 11:21:34 AM  

ZeroPly: Great Lakes people are OK with that id


We don't want them, we like things just the way they are. Let them figure out the problems they created.
 
2014-07-16 11:25:31 AM  

JackieRabbit: The really sad part is that all this water is used to irrigate commodity crops.


All?  What the hell are you talking about?  Where I am at all crop are irrigated and there is very little wheat, corn or soybeans.

Mostly hay and potatoes out here.
 
2014-07-16 11:26:28 AM  
Sorry, farmers, but you might have to, you know, go out of business. Yes, it sucks, but when there's not enough water to sustain farming in a location, well, time to leave that location.

Not that other water-preserving measures shouldn't be taken. But farming in a place where the rainfall doesn't sustain farming and drawing from an aquifer is becoming problematic is dumb.

And yeah, change the stupid Texas law.
 
2014-07-16 11:34:14 AM  

People_are_Idiots: There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves changing the basic laws of phsysics so the following is possible, building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas. When places flood, the water goes from there to a resevoir near the drought areas, thereby reducing or eliminating flooding, and increasing water in places that need it. Also, would generate a LOT of jobs, similar to the public works projects FDR procured


FTFY
 
2014-07-16 11:47:05 AM  
lol, america.
 
2014-07-16 11:47:33 AM  

liam76: What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Long Island does attempt to recharge its aquifer via holes in the ground (called "sumps"), but they use lots of holes scattered all over the island rather than trying to recharge the entire aquifer from hundreds of miles away like kvinesknows was proposing.
 
2014-07-16 11:53:48 AM  
bikkurikun

The problem isn't overpopulation, the problem is lack of foresight and unwillingness to invest in efficiency.
In theory there is more than enough water and food for a few billion people more.

Most people have no idea how hopelessly inefficiently our food is being produced and our resources are being used. The technology is quite simply already there to do it differently, we're just not doing it yet.

Probably the most advanced country in the world when it comes to food production is the Netherlands. The country is about the size of New Hampshire, very densily populated, and still manages to be the world's third largest exporter of vegetables and fruit after the USA and France.  For a large part thanks to an area the size of manhattan covered completely with the highest technology greenhouses.

Feeding the world is no problem at all, if you produce the right products in the right places with the right technology, eat a little meat and fish, and rely on potatoes as a staple (needs less water) instead of rice and wheat.


Agreed!

However, to be fair, up until around the 60's, folks didn't realize how the water system worked. Your average farmer just dug a well and sucked it dry, then located another spot and dug another one.

By the time the average person did get an understanding and had an idea of the looming potential problem, it was just one more Scary Harbinger of Doom that TV shows had been doing spots on and, besides, the bottled water industry had taken off, new, affordable powered water crafts had been developed for entertainment only and swimming pools were in vogue.

Besides, advances in technology had increased the availability of television and radios and along with this came the Doom Sayers, who broadcast long and loud about the Evils of Big Enterprise, Big Government and hundreds of other things and kind of overwhelmed the public.

Like, we went from 1 in 1000 people getting cancer to 1 in 3. Then, thanks to the media and the drive for ratings, you had to wonder just what didn't cause cancer.

When we started having droughts in Florida, water rationing went into effect -- but folks in high end communities still had lush, green lawns since they could afford the increase in the cost of water. Later, we started fining folks over wasting water during droughts and still a lot of people just had to have those lush, green lawns and top off their pools.

Pretty much, water conservation became somebody else's problem.

It wasn't until the 70's that I understood the full water cycle in Florida and the media was pointing out the value of keeping open wild woods for rain absorption -- but money talks and thousands of acres of woods here got paved over for businesses, high end communities and roads.

And the water shortage became chronic.

Technology like used in the Netherlands is expensive to install -- even though the stuff pays for itself down the road -- plus Big Business wants maximum profits with minimum expense. That alone encouraged the throw-away society, which also contributed to the depletion and pollution of existing potable water sources.

So, things get a tad complex and most people will do nothing until they are affected drastically and personally. Especially by being hit in the wallet.

In my city, the average citizens lost control over the place decades ago and the very wealthy control the city politics, who tend to be the major business owners and developers. Growth, to them, is money and lots of it.
 
2014-07-16 12:22:35 PM  

liam76: Stone Meadow: The canal that brings water from the Colorado River carries more than the city needs during the rainy seasons, but less than it needs during the dry seasons (two each per year). The water has to flow continuously, though and cannot be "surged", so the water department continuously manages where the water is sent as it arrives in Tucson, either into the mains or into the aquifer, from where it is later repumped to the surface as needed.

Look closer. It isn't sent "into" the aquifer, as in pumped. It is directed to streams or basins.

The Ogallala Aquifer is mostly covered by an impermeable layer which makes just having it sit there not feasible.


Stone Meadow: This is not to suggest pumping water from the Mississippi River to the high planes to recharge aquifers for grow grass for range cattle is a good idea, but it is certainly technically feasible.


If you are only looking at flood water? No it isn't.

It works where you are because the water is there anyway, they are just diverting it to local basins where it will eventually soak back to the aquifer.


The articel mentions that pumping is possible, but I have never seenit first hand, and you woudl be very limited into how much you could pump into one well at one time. If you are dealing with cyclical flood water (which is next to impossible to get there) you are going to have to have a means to store it on the surface in the interim.


Let's not bog down in the specifics of one particular instance of aquifer recharging. Tucson diverts the water to surface-exposed aquifer, but that is no reason to presume water cannot be actively pumped into aquifers. Otherwise, fracking wouldn't be possible. As it is TFA mentions some county in Texas with 1500 wells that had 4-8 million gallons pumped into each one. Moreover, while parts of the Ogallala are under impermeable layers, other parts are only 3-4 feet under sand.

Point being that no only is aquifer recharging possible, it probably has a bright future. After all, we humans aren't going anywhere soon, and we aren't going to settle for "move somewhere there's water" answers, either. On the contrary, we're going to alter the environment to suit our needs, even if that eventually means near-continent-wide hydrology management. We're already doing it, however imperfectly, in the dry southwest, and it will only spread.
 
2014-07-16 12:24:22 PM  

HeadLever: JackieRabbit: The really sad part is that all this water is used to irrigate commodity crops.

All?  What the hell are you talking about?  Where I am at all crop are irrigated and there is very little wheat, corn or soybeans.

Mostly hay and potatoes out here.


America's Breadbasket stretches from Texas to Canada, not just your little corner of the world. Hay and potatoes are commodity crops. So you very limited viewpoint isn't of much use. Know what the fark you are talking about before you call people down. Or at least read the FA, which touches on my point.
 
2014-07-16 12:36:05 PM  

HeadLever: People_are_Idiots: There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas

And what is going to power the massive pump stations needed to get this water up and over the Continental Divide?  Do you know how expensive it would make this water?

Want to know how I know you are not a water resources engineer?


Want to know how I know you don't know the Romans did this?
 
2014-07-16 12:49:57 PM  

ZeroPly: Your father has obviously never been in an actual flood.


https://www.google.com/search?q=fort+worth+flood&client=firefox-a&rl s= org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=E6z GU_zuAsquyASln4HABQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoATgo&biw=1920&bih=900

My dad's been through 3 (myself, only 2), including the massive flood on 7th Street. Know how they fixed it? Massive Irrigation and levees.
 
2014-07-16 12:57:06 PM  

JackieRabbit: America's Breadbasket stretches from Texas to Canada, not just your little corner of the world.


However, if you were correct by stating that 'all this water is used to irrigate commodity crops' was correct, then that would also apply to my 'little corner of the world' as well, would it not?


Hay and potatoes are commodity crops.

If you mean commodity crop as meaning any agriculture product with a commodity market behind it, then your definition would pretty much include all crops.  You statement of 'the US now has 200 acres under cultivation for commodity crops (corn, wheat, soybeans, etc) for every one acre under cultivation for all fruits and vegetables'makes little sense when you realize that most fruits and vegetables are also considered commodity crops.

In addition, your statement here   'unfortunately, we cannot thrive on HFCS, soy lecithin, and wheat flour' makes even less sense that you first limit your definition to only these three crops, when you later argue that many other crops also qualify.

Or are you being dishonest on purpose?
 
2014-07-16 01:02:05 PM  
Meh.

this isn't even a challenge to solve.

The Great Lakes are WAY closer to this than they are to Las Vegas.

Drop out of that stupid treaty with Canada.  Build a canal/pumping stations.

Solved.
 
2014-07-16 01:04:28 PM  

Stone Meadow: but that is no reason to presume water cannot be actively pumped into aquifers. Otherwise, fracking wouldn't be possible.


I didn't say it can't be pumped in.

I said it is stupid to pretend it is like is a "hole waiting to be filled".

Fracking isn't storing thousands of gallons under water for future use. It is short term injection of water or a solution to create fractures in the formation to allow hydrocarbons to flow out after the fracking fluid is no longer forced down under pressure.


Stone Meadow: Point being that no only is aquifer recharging possible


Once again, I never said it wasn't possible, I said it is stupid to pretend it is like is a "hole waiting to be filled".

It is even stupider to think it makes sense to pump flood water from the Missippi and the Northern Red River from there to Vega to be pumped into this aquifer hole waiting to be filled.

Stone Meadow: As it is TFA mentions some county in Texas with 1500 wells that had 4-8 million gallons pumped into each one.


Missed that in the article and in the one you posted, where does it say that?
 
2014-07-16 01:12:23 PM  

People_are_Idiots: HeadLever: People_are_Idiots: There is an idea my father actually came up with, that'd solve the entire problem of drought in one place, flood in another. It involves building a network of irrigation pipes from flood-prone areas to the drought-stricken areas

And what is going to power the massive pump stations needed to get this water up and over the Continental Divide?  Do you know how expensive it would make this water?

Want to know how I know you are not a water resources engineer?

Want to know how I know you don't know the Romans did this?


The Romans did't.

Whiel their aquifres were bad ass, they were all gravity driven from fairly regular sources fo water. They woudl be of next to no use at managing floods.
 
2014-07-16 01:12:29 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Want to know how I know you don't know the Romans did this?


Pump thousands of cubic feet per second of water thousands of feet uphill?  You are right.  I didn't know that Romans were capable of this.  I guess I better start watching Ancient Aliens a bit more.
 
2014-07-16 01:23:27 PM  

HeadLever: People_are_Idiots: Want to know how I know you don't know the Romans did this?

Pump thousands of cubic feet per second of water thousands of feet uphill?  You are right.  I didn't know that Romans were capable of this.  I guess I better start watching Ancient Aliens a bit more.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw (quite efficient)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Romans_get_water_up_hills_usin g_ aquaducts (Not so efficient)
 
2014-07-16 01:40:27 PM  

liam76: Stone Meadow: Rik01: And still, people pour into my city yearly. Traffic has become a nightmare. Decades old citrus groves have been sold and turned into housing complexes. Drainage ditches which used to run with shallow, clear water, like creeks and streams, now run with murky, dark waters, deeper and more foul.

People were saying that about you when you showed up.

No, he is different....


kvinesknows: when the rivers overflow... they pretty much just fark everyone over all along the way to the ocean.

http://www.collegian.com/2013/09/river-flooding-can-be-an-ecological- b enefit/43892/

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/floods.html

kvinesknows: logistics smogisttics. getting the water to the aquifer is a few hundred miles from either watershed. not a problem.

Yeah huge problem.

The water doesn;t pop up at one spot where it can be conveniently piped, nor is it a constant rate which is what is reauired to pipe it effectively.

kvinesknows: they are essentially holes waiting to be filled.. yes.....

No. Do you think oil sits in big undeground lakes too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer

An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well.


What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


morons like you who limit their thinking to what they know as fact are the reason why the aquifer is essentially empty.

YES it is actually just a empty vessel waiting to be filled.  As stated earlier.. it wont be easy.. but it will be a farkton easier than dealing with losing all that land.. and are the cities and everything else that depends on that water.

expand your mind. think outside the box..you might just not feel as stupid as you sound
 
2014-07-16 01:40:52 PM  

liam76: Stone Meadow: but that is no reason to presume water cannot be actively pumped into aquifers. Otherwise, fracking wouldn't be possible.

I didn't say it can't be pumped in.

I said it is stupid to pretend it is like is a "hole waiting to be filled".

Fracking isn't storing thousands of gallons under water for future use. It is short term injection of water or a solution to create fractures in the formation to allow hydrocarbons to flow out after the fracking fluid is no longer forced down under pressure.


Stone Meadow: Point being that no only is aquifer recharging possible

Once again, I never said it wasn't possible, I said it is stupid to pretend it is like is a "hole waiting to be filled".

It is even stupider to think it makes sense to pump flood water from the Missippi and the Northern Red River from there to Vega to be pumped into this aquifer hole waiting to be filled.

Stone Meadow: As it is TFA mentions some county in Texas with 1500 wells that had 4-8 million gallons pumped into each one.

Missed that in the article and in the one you posted, where does it say that?


Look...stop digging! (bad pun intended ;))

Both infiltration (as used in Tucson) AND injection pumping are routinely used to recharge aquifers. In fact, as of 5 years ago there were some 1200 aquifer recharging operations listed by the EPA, and some of them are 'holes waiting to be filled'.

And yes, suggesting flood waters could be diverted uphill to replenish the Ogallala to water the grass for range-fed beef is a bit silly, but only because of the direct and indirect economics. The concept itself, of pumping water uphill to store in aquifers is in practice every day.

I did get the source and number of wells incorrect. It's 1600 wells in Dimmit County, and it's in a post up-thread.
 
2014-07-16 01:42:56 PM  

Stone Meadow: Both infiltration (as used in Tucson) AND injection pumping are routinely used to recharge aquifers. In fact, as of 5 years ago there were some 1200 aquifer recharging operations listed by the EPA, and some of them are 'holes waiting to be filled'..


Source
 
2014-07-16 01:43:33 PM  

Stone Meadow: Stone Meadow: Both infiltration (as used in Tucson) AND injection pumping are routinely used to recharge aquifers. In fact, as of 5 years ago there were some 1200 aquifer recharging operations listed by the EPA, and some of them are 'holes waiting to be filled'..

Source


WTF?

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/aquiferrecharge.cfm
 
2014-07-16 01:43:34 PM  

Graffito: kvinesknows: and yet the red river (northern) and the Mississippi flood almost every year... why not divert the excess to the aquifer ?

different watershed


who the fark cares?  you want people to die and land to dry up... or you want to pretend that protecting one watershed from the other is somehow a critically important thing?
 
2014-07-16 01:46:34 PM  
Pickens is way ahead of you. He's way ahead of the guys who are at the head of the line you're in.

Not only is he planting windmill farms now to benefit from peak fossil fuel later, but he's also farming the one thing you can farm without water:  electricity.

Crazy like a fox farm.
 
2014-07-16 01:54:37 PM  
Subby, a word about that headline. I realize now that "going South" has a metaphoric meaning and should not have been interpreted literally, but when I first read the headline I thought it was about shipping scarce water from Texas to customers in Mexico.

At least my literal version would have been ironic and somewhat funny. I am very disappointed..

Water waters. About to begin they are.

Desert irrigation. It just doesn't work in the medium to long term.
 
2014-07-16 01:55:38 PM  
Carp. For "water waters" please read "water wars".

(Damn flood protection. Mumbly grumbly moan groan.)
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report