On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:

>
> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> water gets none.
>

Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.

On 2015-05-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:

>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>> water gets none.

> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.

Ed, I can understand your not knowing CA history, but sf has zero excuse.
In fact, sf gets her water from Hetch-Hetchy, which is 170 miles away.
How does she think that pristine Sierra snow water gets all the way to
San Fransico? By taxi!?

SoCal (Southern California) has been robbing the rest of the state
blind for water for decades. Pipelines are entirely too small.
Check out the California Aquaduct:

http://tinyurl.com/lkuv8kc

These canals are typically 100 ft wide (at surface) and 30 ft deep.
These water wars, which make up the biggest point of contention in
NorCal and SoCal politics, have been going on for decades. Even as
far back as the 19th century.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-05-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>> water gets none.
>
>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
> Ed, I can understand your not knowing CA history, but sf has zero excuse.
> In fact, sf gets her water from Hetch-Hetchy, which is 170 miles away.
> How does she think that pristine Sierra snow water gets all the way to
> San Fransico? By taxi!?
>
> SoCal (Southern California) has been robbing the rest of the state
> blind for water for decades. Pipelines are entirely too small.
> Check out the California Aquaduct:
>

BS. SoCal uses abouit 3-5% of all water in the state. 85% goes to farms.

> http://tinyurl.com/lkuv8kc
>
> These canals are typically 100 ft wide (at surface) and 30 ft deep.
> These water wars, which make up the biggest point of contention in
> NorCal and SoCal politics, have been going on for decades. Even as
> far back as the 19th century.

And most evaporates.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 24 May 2015 17:33:04 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2015-05-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> water gets none.
>
> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
> Ed, I can understand your not knowing CA history, but sf has zero excuse.
> In fact, sf gets her water from Hetch-Hetchy, which is 170 miles away.
> How does she think that pristine Sierra snow water gets all the way to
> San Fransico? By taxi!?
>
So glad your basic knowledge of water in California tells you that
what's true for San Francisco is true for the entire state of
California. Perhaps you can explain why there's a water crisis if
everything is so peach keen.

> SoCal (Southern California) has been robbing the rest of the state
> blind for water for decades. Pipelines are entirely too small.
> Check out the California Aquaduct:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lkuv8kc
>
> These canals are typically 100 ft wide (at surface) and 30 ft deep.
> These water wars, which make up the biggest point of contention in
> NorCal and SoCal politics, have been going on for decades. Even as
> far back as the 19th century.
>
Which doesn't mitigate the current water crisis in the slightest.
Perhaps you can also note that they've sucked the California end of
the Colorado river dry and are working on the aquifers.

In the mean time, there you are sitting on your mountain top in
Colorado, next to a raging river, constantly complaining about
California.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 12:49 PM, sf wrote:
> On 24 May 2015 17:33:04 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-05-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>> Ed, I can understand your not knowing CA history, but sf has zero excuse.
>> In fact, sf gets her water from Hetch-Hetchy, which is 170 miles away.
>> How does she think that pristine Sierra snow water gets all the way to
>> San Fransico? By taxi!?
>>
> So glad your basic knowledge of water in California tells you that
> what's true for San Francisco is true for the entire state of
> California. Perhaps you can explain why there's a water crisis if
> everything is so peach keen.
>
>> SoCal (Southern California) has been robbing the rest of the state
>> blind for water for decades. Pipelines are entirely too small.
>> Check out the California Aquaduct:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/lkuv8kc
>>
>> These canals are typically 100 ft wide (at surface) and 30 ft deep.
>> These water wars, which make up the biggest point of contention in
>> NorCal and SoCal politics, have been going on for decades. Even as
>> far back as the 19th century.
>>
> Which doesn't mitigate the current water crisis in the slightest.
> Perhaps you can also note that they've sucked the California end of
> the Colorado river dry and are working on the aquifers.
>
> In the mean time, there you are sitting on your mountain top in
> Colorado, next to a raging river, constantly complaining about
> California.


Ever read the Colorado River Compact?

Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
signatory to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

The compact divides the river basin into two areas, the Upper Division
(comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower
Division (Nevada, Arizona and California). The compact requires the
Upper Basin states not to deplete the flow of the river below 7,500,000
acre feet (9.3 km3) during any period of ten consecutive years. Based on
rainfall patterns observed in the years before the treaty's signing in
1922, the amount specified in the compact was assumed to allow a roughly
equal division of water between the two regions. The states within each
basin were required to divide their 7,500,000-acre (30,000 km2) foot per
year (289 m³/s) share allotment among themselves. The compact enabled
the widespread irrigation of the Southwest, as well as the subsequent
development of state and federal water works projects under the United
States Bureau of Reclamation. Such projects included the Hoover Dam and
Lake Powell.

The current specific annual allotments in the Lower Basin were
established in 1928 as part of the Boulder Canyon Project, while the
current specific annual allotments in the Upper Basin were established
by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948.[2] They a
Upper Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
Colorado 51.75%* 3.86 million acre·ft/year (150.7 m³/s)
Utah 23.00%* 1.71 million acre·ft/year (67.0 m³/s)
Wyoming 14.00%* 1.04 million acre·ft/year (40.8 m³/s)
New Mexico 11.25%* 0.84 million acre·ft/year (32.8 m³/s)
Arizona 0.70% 0.05 million acre·ft/year (2.0 m³/s)
*Percentages with a star are a percentage of the total after Arizona's
0.05 million are deducted. Arizona's percentage is of the total.
Lower Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
California 58.70% 4.40 million acre·ft/year (172 m³/s)
Arizona 37.30% 2.80 million acre·ft/year (109 m³/s)
Nevada 4.00% 0.30 million acre·ft/year (12 m³/s)


Kind of unfortunate it was crafted during record wet years, no?

If the upper states have drought at some point they could end up being
compelled to send ALL their water downstream to meet the quotas set in
those wet years.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:25:22 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:
>
>
> Ever read the Colorado River Compact?

No. But I'm not claiming it's a good thing either.
>
> Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
> signatory to it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
>
People shouldn't be living in the desert and expecting to live as if
they were still in the NE/NW sections of the country.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 3:12 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:25:22 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ever read the Colorado River Compact?
>
> No. But I'm not claiming it's a good thing either.

The premise was reasonable, they just needed to have an annual
precipitation adjustment factor.

Oh well, climatology back then was perhaps less a science than now.

>>
>> Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
>> signatory to it.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
>>
> People shouldn't be living in the desert and expecting to live as if
> they were still in the NE/NW sections of the country.

100% agree!

No lawns, recycle gray water, etc.

On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>
>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>> water gets none.
>>
>
> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.


Shatner thinks so.

Seattle may differ.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> water gets none.
> >>
> >
> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
>
> Shatner thinks so.
>
> Seattle may differ.

I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.

--

sf

On 24/05/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
No we are NOT!
Graham

--

On 5/24/2015 3:55 PM, graham wrote:
> On 24/05/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>> water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shatner thinks so.
>>>
>>> Seattle may differ.
>>
>> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>>
> No we are NOT!
> Graham
>
Oh come on, we'll trade you a Keystone XL approval for some water...

On 5/24/2015 3:14 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
One fly in that ointment, we've already got water bottlers in line ahead
exporting some of that water.

And Canada told us once to go pound sand.

There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
no kidding.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:24:58 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
> no kidding.

All that was "floated" during the last big one 40 years ago.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 4:47 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 16:24:58 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> There are actually plans to capture and to icebergs to China for water,
>> no kidding.
>
> All that was "floated" during the last big one 40 years ago.
>
Lol.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...chemes/243364/

Every few years for the past couple centuries, even before the
large-scale cultivation of marijuana, this idea occurs to someone: What
if we towed an iceberg from the poles, where there are no people, to
some dry, populous place and then melted it into freshwater?

In some cases, that person has ginned up a company to try to make it
happen. In others, they've written reports for the RAND Corporation or
turned the idea into the basis for a thriller mass market paperback.

Long-distance iceberg towing is one of those ideas that will not die but
never really springs to life either. It exists in a kind of
technological purgatory, dressed up in whatever technology is
fashionable during an epoch and resold to a happily gullible media.

This happened again this week when Georges Mougin told the world that
newfangled computer models just happened to confirm what he'd long
thought: that icebergs could be transported economically to Africa.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>> >> water gets none.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>>
>> Shatner thinks so.
>>
>> Seattle may differ.
>
> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.


How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/24/2015 8:04 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>> water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shatner thinks so.
>>>
>>> Seattle may differ.
>>
>> I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
>
> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?

With a real fine straw, you ****ing ASSHOLE!

On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >> >> water gets none.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >>
> >>
> >> Shatner thinks so.
> >>
> >> Seattle may differ.
> >
> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>
>
> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>
The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 19:04:44 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 11:42:27 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/24/2015 10:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >> > On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of
>> >> >> pipelines,
>> >> >> water gets none.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> >> > reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Shatner thinks so.
>> >>
>> >> Seattle may differ.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking Great Lakes region, Canada... places with plenty of water
>> > that are willing to exchange it for money. Just like oil is now.
>>
>>
>> How do we take water only from the US "side" of the great lakes, exactly?
>>
> The same way we remove oil from one side of a boarder.

As in room and board?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:58:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >
> > There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> > water gets none.
> >
>
> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.

Who needs a reasonable distance? If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 12:42 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:58:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>> water gets none.
>>>
>>
>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
> Who needs a reasonable distance?

Investors?

> If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
> to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.

Bbbbbbut...Keystone XL was denied!

On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:11:47 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 12:42 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:58:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
> >>> water gets none.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >
> > Who needs a reasonable distance?
>
> Investors?
>
> > If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
> > to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.
>
> Bbbbbbut...Keystone XL was denied!
>
>
A water leak won't contaminate the aquifer beneath it!

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 3:15 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:11:47 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 12:42 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:58:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>>> water gets none.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>>
>>> Who needs a reasonable distance?
>>
>> Investors?
>>
>>> If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
>>> to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.
>>
>> Bbbbbbut...Keystone XL was denied!
>>
>>
> A water leak won't contaminate the aquifer beneath it!
>

Heh, no but it will cause untold miles of excavation, or an unsightly
above ground installation.

Your point is taken, water can be piped quite easily, save for the
expense of the utilities to run the pumping stations.

On 5/24/2015 2:42 PM, sf wrote:

>>
>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
> Who needs a reasonable distance? If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
> to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.
>

Willing to pay $65 a barrel for water?

On Sun, 24 May 2015 22:30:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 5/24/2015 2:42 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
> >> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
> >
> > Who needs a reasonable distance? If oil can be piped from Mid-Canada
> > to the Gulf coast then water can go that distance too.
> >
>
> Willing to pay $65 a barrel for water?

When it's a choice between zero water and paying $65 a barrel, what do
you think?

--

sf

On 2015-05-24 1:57 PM, wrote:

>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>
> I recall years ago they approached British Columbia about all their
> lakes with the water not being used. Apparently it would be a
> federal, not provincial matter and permission was not given but rather
> the exhortation to fix the problem at home, not prolong by sucking BC
> lakes dry.
>
Those lakes and rivers are part of the ecosystem. Sucking water from
those sources will just cause hardship for the stuff downstream. There
are international treaties concerning the Great Lakes, though there is a
river some... Illinois<?>.. that has been engineered to suck water out
of Lake Michigan instead of feeding into it.