Would an Interstate water redistribution system be possible?

Question

It's been talked about before -- a massive water redistribution system similar to the Eisenhower Interstate system -- but I'm wondering if it would be technologically possible.

The idea is that each state would install huge water pipelines, probably along major Interstate routes like I-95, I-10, I-35, etc. And then, using water from rainfalls, water would be moderately filtered, then pumped from areas with too much water over to areas with too little water, where it would be processed further to make it clean and potable.

So major weather events like the Iowa catastrophe or the continuing drought in the Southeast would be prevented, and the nation would be in a strategically strong position to guarantee sufficient water for agriculture regardless of natural climate change.

It would probably be as or more expensive than the Interstate project, but become an equally integral part of the nation's future.

What do you think? Is it technologically possible?

Answer 1

Is it technologically possible?  Sure, why not.  We have pipes, we can make big networks of pipes, we have pumps, and all of that good stuff.

Is it feasible?  Nope.  You're talking about *much* more work than our interstate highway system -- pipes need to get buried, probably, and then there's that whole matter about water only really liking to flow downhill.  I think we need pumps.  Lots and lots of pumps.  Pumps can break, and so can pipes. . . and then it's not like a pothole we just drive through or around, but perhaps one heck of a water main break out in the middle of nowhere.  The pipes need to be pretty big, right?  Nice idea, but I don't think it's very practical on the scale you're talking about.  Managing the drinking water distribution system for a large city is enough of a headache.

Living in a part of the country that flooded nicely in '93 (although not flooded now). . . I'd also very much oppose such a plan.  That's *your* problem if you wanted to settle and build out in the desert where we've known it hardly ever rains for generations, not *mine*.  I'd rather have large-scale flooding once or twice a generation than risk too much of it going to places that can't support the kind of population we're trying to put there.  We happen to very much like not having to deal with things like the water rights system in the SW, which would likely have to come with such a redistribution system.

Answer 2

Yes of course its technologically possible to build this water system.  The money required isn't there.  You will never get states with "too much water" to agree with this.

You should build where their are resources.  Places like Phoenix, Vegas, LA have some natural fresh water.  At some point you have to say hey we cant build here anymore cause we don't have the resources to sustain a proper modern city.

These places with too much water are usually the Great Lakes.  Growing up in Michigan I can tell you they don't have too much water.  The water levels are cyclical and currently they are at the low end.  Ships can only be filled part way, marinas and canals are dry.  Lakes are refilled by rain and runoff in their drainage basin.  The SW is not in that area so that water is just lost.  Its not going to drain back into the lakes.

Answer 3

Each individual part of your proposed idea is technologically possible. The cost, however, is through the roof. I'm talking about both the initial cost and the cost of repairing leaking/broken lines (which would be even higher over time).

Rain also falls cyclically. For example, I went to college in southern Ohio...there was a drought every August that could last 2-3 months, but the area saw plenty of rain every spring, through the early summer. The local people had to install water towers to "make it through." Despite tens of thousands of college students that arrived in the area (to my college and a few small ones in the surrounding area) every fall, they managed to provide for themselves just fine.

You also have to consider how water would be used in a need based system...the mid-west might find all this extra water useful for irrigation, so they'll demand it be shipped to them, not caring that larger cities need more for sanitation and drinking water. Southern California is heavily irrigated, so much so that some regions can grow lettuce. Do we take water away from them on the grounds that they don't need as much since they can irrigate from rivers? Are cities that have water parks being "wasteful" when other areas have a drought?

Finally, who would have responsibility for water distribution and repairing the pipes? It's easy to say "the government," but you'll see new "water-rights lobbyists" for every state and region, which is a waste of legislator time and state funds. And even if the federal government foots the bill for maintenance (by falling further into debt), its the citizens of the areas that face more construction.

In the end, schemes based on "giving what you can and taking what you need" just don't work out.