For years I have advocated that the USA build a pipeline from the East Coast flood plains (which ties in the the snow areas) into the West Coast and surrounding states so that those places that are flooded can have relief and those areas that are dry can have relief. If there is too much water, it can be stored in the many systems in California, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and any other dry state.
I wrote to our last two presidents, to the Congress and the state congress at the time, to various governors, the Senate, and the state senate at the time. Did I ever get a response? Nope. Why? Makes too much sense I think.
My economics teacher at the University of Redlands told me that water wasn't expensive enough to support the pipeline. I did a thesis on it for him to show that about 8 billion dollars (that's right, 8 billion dollars) a year is lost in flooding. It is for both personal property as well as crops and live stock. Who bears the brunt of this expense? YOU. ME. OUR CHILDREN. OUR PARENTS.
The insurance companies originally. So who would benefit with the transfer of water? All of the USA…even Mexico who doesn't get their fair share as it is because we divert all the rivers. We have aqua ducts that bring water from Northern California and Utah and Colorado into Arizona. Why not from areas that are actually suffering from too much water? Even the Mississippi Valley could use some relief at different times in the year.
I would like for there to be some sort of uprising, although I doubt I will ever see it, on behalf of the flooded friends and relatives and on behalf of all the farmers who are financially and emotionally impacted by the lack of vision by our government.
Isn't that what they are REALLY supposed to be working on…our welfare?