Liberal Forum

Skans » 02 Jun 2022, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2022, 12:12 pm

That's too difficult, would piss too many states off and is unnecessary - just take the salt out of the ocean water!  2/3rd's of the planet is ocean water.

Too difficult is NEVER a reason to back off an idea. "Too difficult" should mean tackle it, rather than kick the can to our grandkids, down the road. Those flood waters should have been addressed in the 60s. We should put a stop to that - lives are lost every year to flooding in the midwest, and hundreds of millions in property daage occur.

Pretend the pipeline is for oil. See that?

The only thing the states would be "pissed off" over is being bypassed. They would FIGHT to be part of the project. Daylighted pipeline water plus **** land = prime real estate = increased economic growth, increased population, new jobs and an increased tax base.

It's not an either/or. This nation needs two hundred desalination plants yesterday. This project is paid for four ways: selling irrigation water to the southwest, eliminating our trade deficit, saving billions in flood damage and turning **** lands into prime real estate. New state and national parks and recreation areas, new commercial opportunities - the options from dylighting the pipeline are endless. Another way the project pays for itself is through decreased flood risks, which equates to decreased insurance premiums - we're talking hundreds of millions annually.