Comments by "S S" (@SS-yj2le) on "Water Pipeline: What If An Aqueduct Was Built From The Great Lakes To The Southwest?" video.

Why does anyone need lawns at all anywhere?
7
@Paul Bettencourt Not a bad idea. Plus, you would increase the amount of orographic lift the nearby mountains would receive nearby and fill up more reservoirs. That would also increase the Colorado’s water suppy a bit as well. The water can also do what the Great Salt lake does in producing thunderstorms. That lake despite being very shallow also produces 10% of the precipitation that Salt Lake city receives. Death valley recently had a major thunderstorm flood due to increasing numbers of summer thunderstorms here. The main issue here though is that due to deserts having high evapotranspiration, the precipitation totals will not increase by that much as the water vapor produced will not precipitate. We will also need it to be continuously flowing water with it likely starting from the gulf of California and extending the Salton Sea’s waterways.
2
Also, the Aral sea is shallow and has always been relatively shallow with max depth around 300 feet vs the lakes having around 1,500 max depth and over a much bigger surface area. It would actually take a lot to dry the lakes up.
2
Absolutely not. You will not get these people to drink deadzone water.
1
@RK-cj4oc The infamous deadzone at the end of the river where the water changes color due to all the pesticides it is filled with. Then again, makes more sense just to get our water from places farther north of here.
1
San Diego has one too and still has water issues as it isn’t enough water. Also, the whole state isn’t Santa Barbara. Up north, you generally will find most places have more than enough.
1
@Doc1855 I was talking about the central coast. But yes. The southern part of the central valley which would probably count as central, is indeed hit extremely hard. For illegal invaders, no evidence of such. We don't even have that many in total people from outside of the country here.
1
@cavemancavemanog They are even more water-scarce than Los Angeles as they are farther away from Owen's valley and the nearby mountains there don't get as much rainwater with the main areas with good water sources near there are Mount Palomar and the Lake Cuyamaca areas.
1
@cavemancavemanog Phoenix and Las Vegas are definitely desert cities, but I cannot agree with calling Los Angeles that. They not only get nearly double the rain Phoenix receives and nearly 4 times that of Vegas, but the coast also gets intense marine layer influence. Parts of the coast there rarely ever even get into the 90s. Farther down the coast as well, the marine influence is enough for the southern most coastal naturally growing Torrey pines to actually exist and the winter rain months are very sporadic with some amounts being quite a bit. Los Angeles would be more similar to parts of coastal North Africa and Southern Europe. In fact, Europe is getting hit extremely hard right now by the same drought as well with the Po River threatening to dry up the same way as the Colorado. For lawns, you do realize places east can and have wasted water too right? Why not use those types of services the lawn does elsewhere? In Los Angeles, the coastal areas definitely wouldn't need much of anything like that. Though further inland, there definitely should be something as that is intense heat that reaches into the 100s every year. Plants like Saxual trees would be of huge benefit and they are extremely drought resistant and hold multiple advantages like also having shade unlike grass. In other places too. Much of that water can be diverted for other plants that can be more practical.
1
@jpmeyer09 You can have other uses of that space. Also, a lot of lawns just in SoCal don't need much watering. Especially as much of our own grass is adapted to the environment here.
1
@jpmeyer09 One better option. There are numerous others as well.
1
@jpmeyer09 Also, see about getting a license to sell those vegetables or even give away to impoverished.
1
We already have our own thank you very much. It just happens to mostly be the south sucking up our water sources.
1
For one. Your numbers on water dependency don’t make sense. Los Angeles and San Diego range in water usage from only 30-50% bring from the Colorado when they say California takes up 60% of it. Only way it would not be fair is if Southern California having a bigger population make it need more. Especially as Los Angeles originally only needed the Owen’s valley aquaduct before its population became too big. 2. San Francisco and the central and north coast do not use the Colorado. We use snowmelt and rainwater from places in the northern portions of the state and the snowmelt that feed natural eivers from the Huge mountains in the central region of the state. So if we were to get mkre water ourselves if we were to get as dry as the south, it would make more sense to have it come from the Olympic mountains of Washington and possibly British Columbia if Canada is nice enough. With climate change, might even push it out to southern Alaska. It would also make more sense for the southern region of the state instead of going all the way out to Minnesota or Chicago to get it. So no thank you. We have plenty of other sources that are closer and the south does as well.
1
@b_uppy We have numerous different reservoirs. A few years ago, we ended up with too much water. We also use groundwater sources as well and conservation methods and some cities in the southern part of the state have water de-salinization.
1
A water pipeline from Alaska would actually be a much better idea.
1
@RK-cj4oc Because we wouldn't need to get past the Rockies and the trouble with the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. Alaska also has loads of water with some of the rainiest places in the country being located in Alaska. The only trouble we would get from there would be a few minor mountain ranges and the Colombia and Sacramento rivers. It would also require far less imminent domain legal process as these places are far more sparsely populated.
1