Has anyone ever given any thought to trying to capture all the floodwaters that seem to be increasing lately, and moving them to the more drought affected areas?

  • Melkath@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Here’s my half baked response.

    They can pipeline oil over thousands of miles.

    Why can’t they pipeline water?

    Oh shit. I think Nestlé heard me and all of our money goes to blowing up Palestinians, not giving drinkable water to Flint.

    Disregard please.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why can’t they pipeline water?

      Physically there’s no issue. But oil goes from one specific spot (where it’s located) to another specific spot (where it’s refined). Floods and droughts are a little more random. So you’re setting up massive infrastructure for sporadic use going from one random point to another. And all this doesn’t generate money. Maybe it could save money, but bean counters don’t care about that.

      • Melkath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        And there is my tidbit about blowing up Palestinians instead of ensuring Americans have potable water.

    • Alex@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      You can, they are called canals. Look at the Nile delta and the network of irrigation trenches used to spread water from the river to the wider areas. There are a number of dam projects in Africa which are all about managing water flows.

      The principle problem is when your divert water it’s usually at a cost to another area that was using it.