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?

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 months ago

    On top of the logistics of moving massive amounts of water around, flood water is typically highly contaminated - by their nature, floods sweep up everything in their path, which typically will include things like:

    • Soil and sand (a massive pain to filter out)
    • Agricultural run off (manure, pesticides, fertilizer, …)
    • Raw sewage (from treatment plants that tend to be near waterways, or just from damaged infrastructure)
    • Industrial wastes (from existing plants, or old contaminated sites)

    Infectious disease is a major problem after a flood, partly because of infrastructure damage but also just because so many people will have come in contact with contaminated water - you don’t want to irrigate your crops with flood water, much less drink it

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 months ago

    In California we have a project called Flood-MAR, which stands for Managed Aquifer Recharge. Farmers who have land that wont be damaged by floods volunteer to pump lots of water onto their lands during floods. This reduces the downstream flooding slightly, and the water soaks deep into the ground for safe keeping until it needs to be pumped up during a drought.

  • ____@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    Seems like it would be a nightmare to purify. Perhaps useful for agricultural applications, but for drinking and household use…. Most water supplies don’t have e.g., human bodies floating in them.

    Not a scientist, happy to be proven wrong here, but that’s my gut.

    • InvisibleShoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not just bodies. When working around flood waters its recommended to wear hazmat gear because the water is contaminated by human waste from septic tanks, dead animals, petrol, oil, various poisons and fertilizers, chemicals from stuff like paint, etc.

      Probably could be cleaned but even for agri use it would be crazy expensive.

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I know its not really comparable, but seawater has almost as many pollutants in it and governments are actively researching desalination tech

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 months ago

    How would you move all that water? A fleet of water trucks carrying thousands of gallons (barely a dent)? A series of pipes across hundreds/thousands of miles? Who’s going to pay for it? And then you get into the problem of not actually knowing when/where a flood is going to hit. Yes, there’s flood zones, but a pipe route is going to be very specific, I doubt you could just pick it up and move it wherever. Maybe something would be done for a long-term problem to alleviate an already permanently flooded area, but it seems like such a massively expensive undertaking, I’m not sure anyone would be willing to do it.

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

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

      • Alex
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months 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.

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yeah logistics would be a tall hill to climb, but onsite storage could maybe simplify it a bit. Like an under ground tank fed by things like storm drains?

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    Flood water is a terrible material.

    It is full of sand, dirt, plants, animals (dead and alive), chemicals, germs of all kinds, body parts, dangerous pieces of junk…

    Definitely not worth the effort. You want nothing else but to get away from it.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Moving? No. But apparently an early benefit of dams was to provide water throughout the year. Might see more of that.

    Moving water is tricky. If you’re lucky you can move it downhill, but I expect the situations where you can do that from flood to drought is not common. Moving uphill is pretty much out because it’ll take too much energy.

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Some cities catch flood water, hold it, and release it to reservoirs, rivers, etc. later. Chicago’s is interesting and Dallas has a GIANT water vault under Central Expressway. I think most of our water comes from dead (animal) soup.

  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    If the price is right water can be delivered anywhere. Conveniently, places that suffer from droughts also sometimes suffer from floods, so it can just be saved for later rather than delivered anywhere.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        a giant underground storage tank

        That’s basically what groundwater is already.

        The trick isn’t storing it. The earth does that naturally. The trick is moving it where there isn’t enough.

  • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Perfect idea. Let’s drop a huge pipeline from the Mississippi all the way through to California. The energy to build the pipeline, and run the pumping stations will certainly not add to the already problematic energy causing climate change causing these droughts that we’re “fixing” with this huge pipeline.

    /s