I focused on water due to a number of factors. Water limits both developmental growth and economic growth. Excessive water causes billions of dollars in destruction each year. A national infrastructure would mostly connect regional water systems. If, for some bizzare reason, Global Warming really is happening then water reallocation is going to be an even greater necessity. Additionally by putting a price on watersheds there becomes an economic benefit to leaving such areas pristine and underdeveloped.

Frankly the single biggest positive factor would be the creation of a water trading board in Chicago.

So the system, that I’m envisioning, would consist of large interstate/intrastate water pumping systems with the pipes emplaced along the interstate highway right of ways. This pumping system would have a multitude of connections, and multiple pipes, for handling processed/purified water and runoff from the storm systems.

The water from the storm systems would be piped to large regional tank farms where primary silting and initial treatment would take place. Then the water would be pumped to a different set of reservoirs, for semi-permanent storage, or shipped out of state. The primary treatment farms would be off-limits to the public, as there would be machinery and such.

But the reservoirs could easily be formed as a series of man-made lakes. And these lakes could be placed in odd out of the way places. A whole series of such lakes could be placed in Iowa or Kansas as an example. Or perhaps Montana. I’m not picking on lower population states, just those that have been experiencing more than their fair share of droughts.

*shrug* I think it would work very well.

This thread is probably long since dead, but I agree that we need some national level discussion about what constitutes national level infrastructure. Maybe broadcast frequencies aren’t worth worrying about anymore and water, among other things, is.

I hate to promote the idea of yet another federal boondoggle but I’ve been wondering for years if we didn’t need a national infrastructure for water management. Currently all water management is largely in either the municipal, state or regional level. There’s nothing on a national level.

Which really doesn’t make sense. We have national rail systems, road systems and electrical systems. But water isn’t collected or shifted on a national basis. Basically what I’m suggesting is a national infrastructure of large pipes + pumping stations. It would possibly be a private operation comprised of a number of regional companies that would provide a co-ordinated service. Water distribution, costs and pricing would be based on a commodities model. Where water is plentiful, it’s cheap. Where it’s lacking, it’ll be a little more expensive. But having a national system would have a number of advantages.

One advantage is risk management for businesses, governments and industries. Quite a few places are heavily water dependent and so are many businesses. If water is lacking, this is unmanaged risk. By allowing the purchase and delivery of water on a national scale, it allows the management of risk.

Another advantage is elminating the restrictions on growth for numerous areas that are heavily water dependent. There are many places in America where water is an extremely serious issue due to construction and drought.

Another advantage is eliminating drought. While there are some seriously dry aras of America, not every place in America is dry at the same time. Some places end up with too much water, overall or at the wrong times of the year, while others are begging for water. By being able to shift massive amounts of water from one region to another, drought could largely be eliminated.

Another advantage is in flood control. As part of the infrastructure would be the ability to pump massive quantities of water from flood prone areas. While it wouldn’t prevent all flooding, it could lessen the both the threat and the damage greatly. This water could be shifted to large purpose-built reservoirs where the water would be allowed to silt out.

Frankly I think this could be very helpful.

We just let the holes just naturally fill up with oil, add gravel….and voila, instant asphalt. :>]

Actually I was thinking of something more mundane like filling it in with dirt. Maybe dirt is to expensive in California?

Mudslides, a boulder that killed a 16 year old girl, and the usual flooding. It’s been bad.

For details on the above, go visit the San Diego Union/Tribune web site.

I don’t know firsthand what they do in Texas when it comes time to fill in Very Large Holes, but I saw the news video of that concrete truck plop-plopping out dribs and drabs of concrete and I couldn’t help thinking that in most places they would have filled Very Large Dumptrucks with lottsa fill dirt (or municipal waste in NJ) and dumped those into the VHL until it was no longer a VHL. Then comes the concrete and such. It’s gonna take what my mom called “a month of Sundays” to fill that VHL y’all got there by pouring one mixer full o’ concrete at a time. And when you get it filled its gonna be like the Hoover dam – still curing 30 years later.