Water pwns Oil..

[grizzaholic]

Head meet sand.

Not even close. I have tried to reasonably debate the issue with facts, not emotion. You are the one that is letting your personal agenda/biases color how you are reading the posts, and are not able to see that I am right on this issue.

Okkaaayyyy

[TwinTownBisonFan]

The purpose of the Corps of Engineers and dam projects goes (for the most part, and with some obvious exceptions) as follows:

1. Flood control (I dont give a shit what the environmentalists say... avoiding thousands of deaths every year from flash flooding is a good that outweighs the bad)

2. Power generation (esp. for rural and underserved areas, oh yeah, and it's fossil fuel free)

3. Irrigation (i have some quibble with this in some locations where rivers are taxed to the point of drying up - like the colorado)

4. navigation (which jockeys with #3 for importance)

a big gap... until

5. recreation/other uses (described by the corps as a largely ancillary benefit, but often preserved for political reasons)

While a trout fishery is nice... and certainly brings the tourists... it's not the primary reason for the dam... in fact it's an ancillary benefit. the reservoir for irrigation is important... however not to the exclusion of downstream priorities.

fact is... the western water wars a by-product of the region being a semi-arid land that had, until recently been in an historically "wet" cycle. while reservoirs can mitigate some drought conditions... they can not, and frankly should not, mitigate 7-10 years of persistent "drought" as the climate in the region regresses back to the mean. (wadda ya know? i did learn something in meteorology.) the system just isn't designed for that.

I think the farmers and ranchers in the region are going to have to take a hard look at their practices... and in some cases I think some farms and ranches probably aren't going to be sustainable in our new reality of less available water out west... that sucks... but i really don't think turning the mighty Mo in to the next colorado is the solution.

btw... i think you'd all agree i'm a pretty big liberal... but i disagree 100% with D1B on this... Dams are important and needed, and at the end of the day are more good than harm

[D1B]

The purpose of the Corps of Engineers and dam projects goes (for the most part, and with some obvious exceptions) as follows:

1. Flood control (I dont give a shit what the environmentalists say... avoiding thousands of deaths every year from flash flooding is a good that outweighs the bad)

2. Power generation (esp. for rural and underserved areas, oh yeah, and it's fossil fuel free)

3. Irrigation (i have some quibble with this in some locations where rivers are taxed to the point of drying up - like the colorado)

4. navigation (which jockeys with #3 for importance)

a big gap... until

5. recreation/other uses (described by the corps as a largely ancillary benefit, but often preserved for political reasons)

While a trout fishery is nice... and certainly brings the tourists... it's not the primary reason for the dam... in fact it's an ancillary benefit. the reservoir for irrigation is important... however not to the exclusion of downstream priorities.

fact is... the western water wars a by-product of the region being a semi-arid land that had, until recently been in an historically "wet" cycle. while reservoirs can mitigate some drought conditions... they can not, and frankly should not, mitigate 7-10 years of persistent "drought" as the climate in the region regresses back to the mean. (wadda ya know? i did learn something in meteorology.) the system just isn't designed for that.

I think the farmers and ranchers in the region are going to have to take a hard look at their practices... and in some cases I think some farms and ranches probably aren't going to be sustainable in our new reality of less available water out west... that sucks... but i really don't think turning the mighty Mo in to the next colorado is the solution.

btw... i think you'd all agree i'm a pretty big liberal... but i disagree 100% with D1B on this... Dams are important and needed, and at the end of the day are more good than harm

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

You're a short term thinker, and I'm a long term realist.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

The purpose of the Corps of Engineers and dam projects goes (for the most part, and with some obvious exceptions) as follows:

1. Flood control (I dont give a shit what the environmentalists say... avoiding thousands of deaths every year from flash flooding is a good that outweighs the bad)

2. Power generation (esp. for rural and underserved areas, oh yeah, and it's fossil fuel free)

3. Irrigation (i have some quibble with this in some locations where rivers are taxed to the point of drying up - like the colorado)

4. navigation (which jockeys with #3 for importance)

a big gap... until

5. recreation/other uses (described by the corps as a largely ancillary benefit, but often preserved for political reasons)

While a trout fishery is nice... and certainly brings the tourists... it's not the primary reason for the dam... in fact it's an ancillary benefit. the reservoir for irrigation is important... however not to the exclusion of downstream priorities.

fact is... the western water wars a by-product of the region being a semi-arid land that had, until recently been in an historically "wet" cycle. while reservoirs can mitigate some drought conditions... they can not, and frankly should not, mitigate 7-10 years of persistent "drought" as the climate in the region regresses back to the mean. (wadda ya know? i did learn something in meteorology.) the system just isn't designed for that.

I think the farmers and ranchers in the region are going to have to take a hard look at their practices... and in some cases I think some farms and ranches probably aren't going to be sustainable in our new reality of less available water out west... that sucks... but i really don't think turning the mighty Mo in to the next colorado is the solution.

btw... i think you'd all agree i'm a pretty big liberal... but i disagree 100% with D1B on this... Dams are important and needed, and at the end of the day are more good than harm

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

You're a short term thinker, and I'm a long term realist.

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

i live in the real world, where we have to balance our impact on nature in order to survive... i'm not naive enough to embrace an "all natural world" as the only viable and good one... engineering can work, it can do good things, it can serve the public good and it can minimize environmental impact... but "long term" finding a way to use less fossil fuels through dams, regulating the flow of rivers to save lives, ensuring the navigability of our waterways, and managing them with an eye toward human and natural use seems the balanced way to proceed.

[AZGrizFan]

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

You're a short term thinker, and I'm a long term realist.

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

i live in the real world, where we have to balance our impact on nature in order to survive... i'm not naive enough to embrace an "all natural world" as the only viable and good one... engineering can work, it can do good things, it can serve the public good and it can minimize environmental impact... but "long term" finding a way to use less fossil fuels through dams, regulating the flow of rivers to save lives, ensuring the navigability of our waterways, and managing them with an eye toward human and natural use seems the balanced way to proceed.

TTBF, I think it's pretty clear from D's recent rants that THAT wouldn't bother him a bit. Hence the "Ted Kaczinski" references recently.

btw, reppies to you for the "air always smells of warm root beer" line...reminded me of Ron Burgandy.

[Wedgebuster]

Jes in it for the fishin'.

[Appaholic]

Fellas, the dams have been built, the municipals have been watered, the agriculture is being produced.

What now, blow up the dams?

Oh, can we please?

[JayJ79]

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

newsflash: not every square mile is supposed to be inhabitable.
But humans refuse to acknowledge that fact.
And we end up with coastal cities built below sea level,
and people whine and cry when the town floods.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

newsflash: not every square mile is supposed to be inhabitable.
But humans refuse to acknowledge that fact.
And we end up with coastal cities built below sea level,
and people whine and cry when the town floods.

and where would you have all 315 million americans live kimosabe?

because here's a newsflash, every major american city is built along a river, lake, or seacoast. (with a small number of notable exceptions)

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

[JayJ79]

when populations get out of control, nature has ways of bringing that population down to more reasonable levels.

Humans keep trying to ignore/fight that fact. But as long as they continue to do so, they will continue to face an increasing number of such problems.

[Appaholic]

newsflash: not every square mile is supposed to be inhabitable.
But humans refuse to acknowledge that fact.
And we end up with coastal cities built below sea level,
and people whine and cry when the town floods.

and where would you have all 315 million americans live kimosabe?

because here's a newsflash, every major american city is built along a river, lake, or seacoast. (with a small number of notable exceptions)

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

I agree with both statements....the problem is we continue to push the boundaries of natural capacity. The problem isn't people living along the water, the problem is when they feel they have an inherent right to live on a barrier island free of risk. Sure, we can build on a flood plain, but maybe only those structures which we can stand to lose to floods. We can build on oceanfront, but maybe not on the barrier island which is a buffer to the mainland....

[dbackjon]

newsflash: not every square mile is supposed to be inhabitable.
But humans refuse to acknowledge that fact.
And we end up with coastal cities built below sea level,
and people whine and cry when the town floods.

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

Again, Arizona is far ahead of the curve in this regard - building in flood plains in most areas has long been banned, leaving either natural washes, or greenways. For areas that predate modern zoning, like old Winkleman, once it was flooded, no rebuilding was allowed.

There is a lot of room for people, especially if we all didn't insist on having our own 1.5 acres of land to plop our houses on

[Appaholic]

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

Again, Arizona is far ahead of the curve in this regard - building in flood plains in most areas has long been banned, leaving either natural washes, or greenways. For areas that predate modern zoning, like old Winkleman, once it was flooded, no rebuilding was allowed.

There is a lot of room for people, especially if we all didn't insist on having our own 1.5 acres of land to plop our houses on

....with a grass yard in the desert....and water fountains in the circle drive.....

[D1B]

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

You're a short term thinker, and I'm a long term realist.

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

i live in the real world, where we have to balance our impact on nature in order to survive... i'm not naive enough to embrace an "all natural world" as the only viable and good one... engineering can work, it can do good things, it can serve the public good and it can minimize environmental impact... but "long term" finding a way to use less fossil fuels through dams, regulating the flow of rivers to save lives, ensuring the navigability of our waterways, and managing them with an eye toward human and natural use seems the balanced way to proceed.

Thanks again Mr. Obvious. Where did I say "destroy the dams". Fuck you Seargeant Liberal.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

and where would you have all 315 million americans live kimosabe?

because here's a newsflash, every major american city is built along a river, lake, or seacoast. (with a small number of notable exceptions)

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

I agree with both statements....the problem is we continue to push the boundaries of natural capacity. The problem isn't people living along the water, the problem is when they feel they have an inherent right to live on a barrier island free of risk. Sure, we can build on a flood plain, but maybe only those structures which we can stand to lose to floods. We can build on oceanfront, but maybe not on the barrier island which is a buffer to the mainland....

yes i would agree, but there has to be a balance... for example, as much as abandoning new orleans seems a "logical" thing... you're also abandoning trillions of dollars infrastructure and about 25-30% of US Port capacity... and that's a disaster worse than Katrina.

as for your point about barrier islands... i agree... they are called barrier for a reason... and building a 14 story hotel there seems to me to be an invitation to disaster... however local zoning is usually there to prevent it... or be stupid about it i suppose too.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

duplicate... oops

[TwinTownBisonFan]

This all could have been avoided. We shouldnt be radically changing rivers and ecosystems to accomodate humans. Time for population control and time to give mother nature a breather.

Thanks again Mr. Obvious. Where did I say "destroy the dams". Fuck you Seargeant Liberal.

but... you pretty much did earlier in the thread. see above.

[citdog]

look, you can live in the vegan-mudpie-extraordinaire world where everything is all natural and somehow magically nothing goes wrong and the air always smells of warm root beer... but the fact is, what you're advocating would KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. without flood mitigation thousands of square miles would be uninhabitable in this country... the costs to do what you are advocating in either economic impact or lost lives from the horrible flooding that used to routinely plague humanity.

newsflash: not every square mile is supposed to be inhabitable.
But humans refuse to acknowledge that fact.
And we end up with coastal cities built below sea level,
and people whine and cry when the town floods.

some of these coastal cities you speak if are bastions of culture and class, which i understand most of you have no knowledge of, and were built long before where you have the misfortune of living were even States or there was a "late united states"

[D1B]

but... you pretty much did earlier in the thread. see above.

Pretty much don't cut it.

[AZGrizFan]

you can mitigate flood damage (keeping parts of floodplains undeveloped, damming rivers, diversion channels, etc) or you can move a significant portion of the nations population... but where you'd put them is a mystery to me.

Again, Arizona is far ahead of the curve in this regard - building in flood plains in most areas has long been banned, leaving either natural washes, or greenways. For areas that predate modern zoning, like old Winkleman, once it was flooded, no rebuilding was allowed.

There is a lot of room for people, especially if we all didn't insist on having our own 1.5 acres of land to plop our houses on

Why you son of a......FYI, it's 1.33 acres, not 1.5...and it's all desert landscaped with natural plants that require NO water (OK, my wife waters them but she wouldn't HAVE to)...and having 1.33 acres out here means that there's only ONE house per 1.33 acres instead of 6 like in the more densely populated areas of town (like Chandler, muthafucka).

[D1B]

Again, Arizona is far ahead of the curve in this regard - building in flood plains in most areas has long been banned, leaving either natural washes, or greenways. For areas that predate modern zoning, like old Winkleman, once it was flooded, no rebuilding was allowed.

There is a lot of room for people, especially if we all didn't insist on having our own 1.5 acres of land to plop our houses on

Why you son of a......FYI, it's 1.33 acres, not 1.5...and it's all desert landscaped with natural plants that require NO water (OK, my wife waters them but she wouldn't HAVE to)...and having 1.33 acres out here means that there's only ONE house per 1.33 acres instead of 6 like in the more densely populated areas of town (like Chandler, muthafucka).

You knuckleheads will be out of water soon and heading to place like Michigan and Wisconsin to feed your families.

[Cap'n Cat]

SMFH @ T and Z, Generalization Goddesses.

[AZGrizFan]

SMFH @ T and Z, Generalization Goddesses.

I realize this is one of your standard responses, but PUH-LEASE to dell where all the "HATE" and generalization is in my three whole posts in this thread.

[Cap'n Cat]

SMFH @ T and Z, Generalization Goddesses.

I realize this is one of your standard responses, but PUH-LEASE to dell where all the "HATE" and generalization is in my three whole posts in this thread.

What, you can't read, all of a sudden?

[AZGrizFan]

I realize this is one of your standard responses, but PUH-LEASE to dell where all the "HATE" and generalization is in my three whole posts in this thread.

What, you can't read, all of a sudden?

I read just fine. No hate OR generalizations from me in THIS thread.