Letters to the Editor: Cross-country water pipeline is a nutty idea? Tell that to the ancient Romans
To the editor: I guess a closed mind is better than no mind at all. Imagine where the Romans would have wound up if, around 300 B.C., the proposal for the first aqueduct was scoffed at, ridiculed and dismissed as too costly. (“Building a pipeline to the Mississippi? An idea as harebrained as the recall itself,” column, Aug. 30)
Fortunately for the western United States, we already have several substantial water projects in use, many of which could be integrated into a massive plan to redirect water from consistently flood-ravaged portions of the country to the drought-starved regions of the West.
Expensive? Of course, but in the long run it would be hugely rewarding in terms of increased productivity in the West, jobs for construction and maintenance, and dramatic savings from controlling or at least reducing flood damage.
David Coffman, Desert Hot Springs
To the editor: George Skelton ridicules a water pipeline proposal. He should inform himself about the Goldfield pipeline in arid Western Australia.
Built more than 117 years ago to deliver fresh water from Perth to the city of Kalgoorlie 350 miles away, today the pipeline serves about 100,000 people in the Outback. Only recently has the above-ground pipeline been experiencing blowouts due to age. It is so essential that parts of it have already been buried.
So, the concept is not necessarily “wacky.”
Having said this, such a concept in America would not and could not materialize for the reasons Skelton mentions and others. The paralysis to effectively address our water shortage issue will continue until this shortage becomes beyond remedy.
Barbara Gilmore, Thousand Oaks
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.