Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Hurricane and Severe Weather Tracking -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (15124)	3/27/2015 12:59:40 PM
From: louel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26061

If California really wants water. And Oregon is adverse allowing it to tap the Columbia with a pipeline out of it. A submerged line could still be built along the Coast. Collecting the water of the hundreds of year around flowing sea emptieng creeks that are not fish bearing. And a small portion from the rivers that are, where they drain into the ocean. Starting in the north at the Smith river. Adding volume as they pass the Kalamath, Chetco, Mattole and the Big river ect. Plus good creeks like Jackass, Shipman, Bear and so on It is not that water is not available. It is the lack of will to do what it takes to utilize it. Bringing it from the Columbia still needs a pipeline. Only a longer one. Pipelining it is far more efficient than canals which are subject to mass volume loss due to evaporation. A 10 foot pipe at the outlet could not handle all the available volume by the time it reached it's destination. Having traveled the Redwood route south from Grants pass many times. Only to arrive in the southern part of the state where they claim a water shortage. I've often wondered why some one has not promoted the idea. There is water available within their own boundys.