Flood Control and the Next 100 Years...

hobbyfarm · Aug 16, 2005

Here's an idea.

It won't be a quick fix or cheap, but the benefits...

The heavy flood-prone areas could be addressed. It may take a hundred years to implement, and it would be a huge project.
Just like we made an interstate highway system, we could make an underground system of ducts to send water to the areas of the country dry or in drought.

How to accomplish this massive feat of engineering? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Tunnel Boring Machines! could handle the major flows and then branch off with these Small Boring Units to other holding areas. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif We could counter all this talk of running out of wet areas, and drinking water!
Could you imagine a completely green west! What used to be desert could then be used to grow crops.
Could you imagine being able to control the annual flooding from the snow melt, or being able to calm flash flooding!
This would have to eventually be cheaper in the long run than what the flood itself cost as far as damage. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Any thoughts on the subject!! (OK, let the lashing begin!) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DocHeb · Aug 16, 2005

Just a couple boring machines, some control valves, some storage tanks ....

and 100,000 lawyers with 10,000,000 environmental impact statements. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hobbyfarm · Aug 16, 2005

( Just a couple boring machines, some control valves, some storage tanks ....

and 100,000 lawyers with 10,000,000 environmental impact statements. )

What environmental statements... this mother will be deeeeeeep!
And, why "a couple" of boring machines?
Did they build the interstate system with "a couple" of graders?
We are talking about a network of tunnels, this will take a good while to build.

Engineered right, it would not need any pumping equipment other than gravity, and valves.

My idea is so far out, that people are too embarrassed to comment on it.
I'll bet they thought the Panama Canal and Hoover Dam were way out there too.
But, hey, I'm going to patent the idea! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

beenthere · Aug 16, 2005

Go for it. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But, NIMBY

jeffinsgf · Aug 16, 2005

The Corps of Engineers has been working on flood control and river channelization for a couple hundred years. They have managed to screw up river ecology throughout the entire country, including the near demise or complete extinction of several species.

Leave the deserts as deserts. Move the mobile homes away from the flood plains, tear down the levees and let Mother Nature do what she does best. Sorry, I can't get behind any further meddling by man with what we should leave alone.

hobbyfarm · Aug 17, 2005

BTW, My wife thinks this is a "crazy" idea, and won't work. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

And, that's why I think it will work! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

The English Channel Tunnel took a couple of years to build, but it was HUGE!

So, Why could this not be added to the Top Ten Construction Projects of the 20th Century

chim · Aug 17, 2005

Although it could possibly solve a few problems, it could also cause others. One that comes to mind is the manmade lake I read about several years ago (in California?). It was a project that was to be of great benefit. You know, flood control, irrigation, recreation, etc. At the time of the article, there were feuds over who owned the water, and it had become so polluted that people were employed to scare the migrating waterfowl off to prevent them from becoming poisoned. Seems like whenever the government gets involved in something they screw it up.

Another problem is the cost. I want to spend my money. The government on all levels spends way too much of it already.

As for flood protection, I have a novel idea - don't build on a flood plain. I would support a "one strike and you're out" flood insurance policy. If you want to be stupid and rebuild where it is guaranteed your place will wash away again, you should do so at YOUR risk. 20/20 had a segment on how the taxpayers are being bilked with the current flood insurance program. John Stossel even used his own beach-front property as an example.

We'd be a lot better off as a society if the government would help us less...................chim

hobbyfarm · Aug 17, 2005

( We'd be a lot better off as a society if the government would help us less................... )

I agree with that 100%!
Case in point, the drug war. We are at war with ourselves...They should get the H... out of the way and let any reasonable form capitalism take place. (Take your cut and get out of the way.) All they've managed to do is raise the price of the stuff, it can readily be purchased nearly anywhere. And we are locking up so many non-violent offenders that I'd like them to contribute to the tax base(so my taxes can go down a little).

I didn't use to be that way until I needed some serious drugs and could only get glorified Tylenol!

No, I believe that the idea of the flood control would work (of course, it's MY idea!)

chim · Aug 17, 2005

Hobbyfarm, it could be the idea of the millenium. What I have a problem with is another excuse for the government to take another bite of my sandwich.

I can't recall the exact details, but here in PA there was a "temporary" tax put into effect around the 1930's or so to help the flood victims of Johnstown. A noble effort and great idea for people who suffered a terrible trauma. It is still being charged....................chim

hobbyfarm · Aug 18, 2005

( here in PA there was a "temporary" tax put into effect around the 1930's or so to help the flood victims of Johnstown. A noble effort and great idea for people who suffered a terrible trauma. It is still being charged.................... )

chim, I believe it.
The words "temporary" has no meaning to the gov't.
Case in point,
A History of Rural Development Programs

I still think some of these programs are still having a tax levied on the people.