| Author: |
[Politics] Topic: Why is it that no one in the media calls for solutions to the Mississippi flooding. |
|
mattbrot |
 View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4738
Location: United States |
#26 Posted: 4/27/2012 12:12:41 AM QUOTE Originally Posted by dl36: Im sure it is racial issue like Katrina... becasue it is not a "chocolate city" it is the obvious and clear anti-white agenda that Glenn beck and the one or two known "Honorable Glenn Beck" worshipers has tried to spin us... I think that the Bush run FEMA disaster was not malicious but a symptom of poor leadership... Obama talks about investing in innovation, roads etc... perhaps your idea bowslit is a very good one to make our country better and reduce the "aid" needed for the obvious patterns of flooding..  bowslit = a true and intelligent GOP/Conservative voice"  Alot of frauds who think that just because they bash obama that they get it when it comes to the bigger picture... 
it is amazing how the big picture is so easy to dismiss. |
|
quote |
|
jopiscopo |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 373
Location: Kenya |
#27 Posted: 5/9/2012 1:38:25 PM Great people talk about Ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people.
|
|
quote |
|
ruffcutter2006 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3628
Location: United States |
#28 Posted: 5/9/2012 2:00:27 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by bowlslit: It seems to happen with varying intensity every year somewhere in the midwest yet people loose everything....the government, as well as insurance companies spend millions if not billions on rebuilding and dissaster relief.
Why not build a canal system that runs west from the Mississippi river and either catches another river or turns South itself somewhere near western Kansas?
If they wanted, they could make it big enough to have boat traffic just like the Mississippi up and down. I'm not saying it should be as big as the Mississippi, just big enough for two way traffic.
Right now western Texas is struggling to fight fires with short water supplies. A few years ago I heard a story on the news that farmers in western Texas were burning the spines off of cactuses so they could feed them to their cattle in lieu of water because of drought conditions.
Im sure that the money would be very well spent and probably pay for itself in savings over a small number of years....plus create jobs.
kudos for thinking big...but the volume of water is so immense that you would be talking about literally 100's of billions of tons of soil and perhaps only move the flooding problem elsewhere. Elevation differences from the upper mississippi valley to the texas high plains would require excavation hundreds of feet deep...even if ppssible from an engineering viewpoint, I think we are talking trillions of dollars, literally.
|
|
quote |
|
bowlslit |
RSI  |
Covers Rehab
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3561
Location: Greece |
#29 Posted: 5/9/2012 2:32:20 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by ruffcutter2006:
kudos for thinking big...but the volume of water is so immense that you would be talking about literally 100's of billions of tons of soil and perhaps only move the flooding problem elsewhere. Elevation differences from the upper mississippi valley to the texas high plains would require excavation hundreds of feet deep...even if ppssible from an engineering viewpoint, I think we are talking trillions of dollars, literally.
It will cost alot of money for sure. I doubt it would hit the trillion dollar mark.
If done big enough there could be long term business opportunities along the whole way.
Our era needs a 'Hoover Dam' type project to stimulate the economy anyway.
I imagine that at least a trillion has already been spent over the last half century dealing with the issue already. If we do nothing, several billion more will be spent in a short time period. |
|
quote |
|
ruffcutter2006 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3628
Location: United States |
#30 Posted: 5/9/2012 3:17:13 PM
I ran some conservative volume calcs, you are talking literally 100's of billions of tons of excavation, cuts hundreds of feet deep for maybe a thousand miles (you are going uphill to texas, so the farther you go from the mississippi the deeper you cut) and then, you get to texas....and you have water more than a thousand feet below the ground level, that will NEVER fill up because the source at the mississippi might be elevation 600 and your ground surface is elevation...say 1600 or more.
Like I said, kudos for thinking big, but this is pretty much impossible
Believe me it would be more than 1 trillion to do what you are proposing.
|
|
quote |
|
|
|
bowlslit |
RSI |
Covers Rehab
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3561
Location: Greece |
#31 Posted: 5/9/2012 4:35:32 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by ruffcutter2006:
Hoover dam is infinitesimal compared to what you proposed
I ran some conservative volume calcs, you are talking literally 100's of billions of tons of excavation, cuts hundreds of feet deep for maybe a thousand miles (you are going uphill to texas, so the farther you go from the mississippi the deeper you cut) and then, you get to texas....and you have water more than a thousand feet below the ground level, that will NEVER fill up because the source at the mississippi might be elevation 600 and your ground surface is elevation...say 1600 or more.
Like I said, kudos for thinking big, but this is pretty much impossible
Believe me it would be more than 1 trillion to do what you are proposing.
You're correct. I had considered Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas to be relatively close in elevation.
Texas is about 1700 ft above SL
Kansas is about 2000
Oklahoma is about 1300.
|
|
quote |
|
dl36 |
RSI  |
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 22404
Location: United States |
#32 Posted: 5/9/2012 5:00:53 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by mattbrot:
it is amazing how the big picture is so easy to dismiss.
and some are masters at it
|
|
quote |