This being open really disturbs me. This supplies water to some crucial areas. It would seem to me more logical to run it through a large pipeline. The evaporation rate through the route it goes has to take a significant toll. Water is a resource that is taxed hard enough through increasingly more demand. Losing any amount is a contradiction to the effort being made to preserve it. Leaving it exposed without any visible protection is a little disturbing also in a world rapidly become more unpredictable. Obviously most notice the things I mentioned--and it's not something they just overlooked--but nevertheless it just seems to need improvement.
Thanks for your comment Joe! Great observation; as you stated, it is one of the first observations people make. You may be interested in checking out CAP University Virtual Learning. It is free to the public and is a chance to increase awareness and knowledge about CAP. This online session just passed, but keep an eye out for future sessions! www.rosieonthehouse.com/events/central-az-project-cap-university-virtual-learning
Hello Joe, we wanted to follow up again with more information. Thank you for watching our video and sharing your thoughts! We agree every drop of water is precious to the desert and pipelines are a critical part of our infrastructure. However, there are several reasons a pipeline wouldn't work on the CAP. First, the average width of the canal is 80 feet across the top and is even as wide at 160 feet in some places. Even if pipes that size were made anywhere in the world, the sheer size and weight of each length of pipe would be impossible to transport and install. A feature in the canal you may find interesting; there are 10 underground siphons where the canal is piped through 21-foot pipes every time the canal crosses under a river (wet or dry). This is done to ensure the CAP water is not contaminated with muddy surface water during floods. There are also 4 tunnels where the water is piped through mountains. So why can't the whole canal be piped in 21-foot pipe? Reason number two that a pipeline wouldn't work; there wouldn't be enough water in the pipeline to make all the water delivers required in any given day. It would be very problematic for Tucson at the end of the canal to get water when all the farms up the canal are watering crops during planting season. The canal is designed to have enough volume of water (approximately 22,000 acre feet) at any given time in order to make all water deliveries, along its 336 miles length, even during high demands. ADOT and large developments also purchase water from CAP to use during construction. Once a permit is obtained, large portable pumps are used to extract water from the canal at the nearest possible location from the canal, where it is then trucked or piped to the construction sight. This is a very effective and affordable way to get the water required for developments over drilling additional water wells or trucking for further water sources. If CAP was pipped, we couldn't do direct pumping without extraction valves installed every few miles; each valve would add cost and additional leak points to the system. Covering the canal brings additional challenges. A covered canal would make it harder for work crews to perform regular maintenance and the cover itself would also create additional maintenance. The bigger challenge is the canal length. Multiply the 336-mile length by 5,280 feet in a mile, multiplied by 120 feet in width for a cover and we are looking at 212 million square feet of material, or 7.6 square miles to put it in perspective. When the canal was being designed, the Bureau of Reclamation estimated it would cost $12 billion to cover. That calculation was done in the 1960's, imagine what it would cost today. Solar planes have been suggested as the cover material, which is great in concept. In reality, it would blow the up the $12 billion estimate into congressional numbers, and overall provide a small percent of power. To equal Palo Verde's power generation in solar panels, you would need a land mass equivalent to 26,246 football fields or 54 square miles, which is larger than the city of Avondale. The 7.6 miles of a solar cover on CAP would only be 0.14% of Palo Verde's energy generation capacity. In comparison, Palo Verde only cost $5.9 billion to build. Not only would a solar cover massively increase the cost of electric generation, but the return on the investment would also be longer than the expected life expectance of the panels themselves. Finally, a cover doesn't reduce the already low chance of terrorist attack, no matter how unpredictable the world may become. The canal is completely fenced with alarms, patrolled by land and air and is already protected on three sides by the earth. For public safety I don't think the full extent of the infrastructure defense plan will be declassified, but it is public information the F-35's at Luke Air Force base have a travel speed of Mach 1.6 (1,227 miles per hour)...just saying. A chemical contamination isn't realistic either as the volume of chemical that would be required to raise levels of toxicity to a harmful rate would take numerous tanker trucks and would need to be pumped in near a municipality turn out. All of which are in populated areas with additional safety monitoring making it impossible to avoid detection. Municipalities also treat the water and have to meet safety standards that is continuously monitored before delivering to homes and buildings. This is where pipelines for our infrastructure comes into play. From the point of treatment, all the water is piped and safe from any tapering or additional chance of infiltration. So, how much water is evaporating? The answer is 4.5% of the annual 1.2 million acre feet of water is evaporated; 16,000 acre feet from the aqueduct and 50,000 acre feet out of Lake Pleasant. We also like to mention evaporation does not equal loss. Evaporation is a natural cycle of water and everything that evaporates will eventually make its way back to the earth surface in the form of rain or snow. If you are still reading down to this point, I hope we have eased your concerns and restored your faith in our water supply. If not, consider this: the Colorado River Aqueduct and All-American Canal which pumps Colorado River water into California are about twice the size and move three times the water as CAP and they are both open too...
@@RosieOnTheHouseVideos Thank you for the clarification. I knew there were good reasons, I just didn't understand them. It also seems deceptively smaller in the videos.
@@joemcauliffe7482 You should look into the massive water pipes (as part of the world's largest water infrastructure effort) that were being installed in Libya before Gadaffi was killed. That the UN intentionally poisoned that water system with its DU (depleted uranium) attacks is known by too few persons.
very interesting. Thank you
That was very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
This being open really disturbs me. This supplies water to some crucial areas. It would seem to me more logical to run it through a large pipeline. The evaporation rate through the route it goes has to take a significant toll. Water is a resource that is taxed hard enough through increasingly more demand. Losing any amount is a contradiction to the effort being made to preserve it. Leaving it exposed without any visible protection is a little disturbing also in a world rapidly become more unpredictable. Obviously most notice the things I mentioned--and it's not something they just overlooked--but nevertheless it just seems to need improvement.
Thanks for your comment Joe! Great observation; as you stated, it is one of the first observations people make. You may be interested in checking out CAP University Virtual Learning. It is free to the public and is a chance to increase awareness and knowledge about CAP. This online session just passed, but keep an eye out for future sessions! www.rosieonthehouse.com/events/central-az-project-cap-university-virtual-learning
Hello Joe, we wanted to follow up again with more information. Thank you for watching our video and sharing your thoughts!
We agree every drop of water is precious to the desert and pipelines are a critical part of our infrastructure. However, there are several reasons a pipeline wouldn't work on the CAP. First, the average width of the canal is 80 feet across the top and is even as wide at 160 feet in some places. Even if pipes that size were made anywhere in the world, the sheer size and weight of each length of pipe would be impossible to transport and install. A feature in the canal you may find interesting; there are 10 underground siphons where the canal is piped through 21-foot pipes every time the canal crosses under a river (wet or dry). This is done to ensure the CAP water is not contaminated with muddy surface water during floods. There are also 4 tunnels where the water is piped through mountains. So why can't the whole canal be piped in 21-foot pipe? Reason number two that a pipeline wouldn't work; there wouldn't be enough water in the pipeline to make all the water delivers required in any given day. It would be very problematic for Tucson at the end of the canal to get water when all the farms up the canal are watering crops during planting season. The canal is designed to have enough volume of water (approximately 22,000 acre feet) at any given time in order to make all water deliveries, along its 336 miles length, even during high demands. ADOT and large developments also purchase water from CAP to use during construction. Once a permit is obtained, large portable pumps are used to extract water from the canal at the nearest possible location from the canal, where it is then trucked or piped to the construction sight. This is a very effective and affordable way to get the water required for developments over drilling additional water wells or trucking for further water sources. If CAP was pipped, we couldn't do direct pumping without extraction valves installed every few miles; each valve would add cost and additional leak points to the system.
Covering the canal brings additional challenges. A covered canal would make it harder for work crews to perform regular maintenance and the cover itself would also create additional maintenance. The bigger challenge is the canal length. Multiply the 336-mile length by 5,280 feet in a mile, multiplied by 120 feet in width for a cover and we are looking at 212 million square feet of material, or 7.6 square miles to put it in perspective. When the canal was being designed, the Bureau of Reclamation estimated it would cost $12 billion to cover. That calculation was done in the 1960's, imagine what it would cost today. Solar planes have been suggested as the cover material, which is great in concept. In reality, it would blow the up the $12 billion estimate into congressional numbers, and overall provide a small percent of power. To equal Palo Verde's power generation in solar panels, you would need a land mass equivalent to 26,246 football fields or 54 square miles, which is larger than the city of Avondale. The 7.6 miles of a solar cover on CAP would only be 0.14% of Palo Verde's energy generation capacity. In comparison, Palo Verde only cost $5.9 billion to build. Not only would a solar cover massively increase the cost of electric generation, but the return on the investment would also be longer than the expected life expectance of the panels themselves. Finally, a cover doesn't reduce the already low chance of terrorist attack, no matter how unpredictable the world may become. The canal is completely fenced with alarms, patrolled by land and air and is already protected on three sides by the earth. For public safety I don't think the full extent of the infrastructure defense plan will be declassified, but it is public information the F-35's at Luke Air Force base have a travel speed of Mach 1.6 (1,227 miles per hour)...just saying. A chemical contamination isn't realistic either as the volume of chemical that would be required to raise levels of toxicity to a harmful rate would take numerous tanker trucks and would need to be pumped in near a municipality turn out. All of which are in populated areas with additional safety monitoring making it impossible to avoid detection. Municipalities also treat the water and have to meet safety standards that is continuously monitored before delivering to homes and buildings. This is where pipelines for our infrastructure comes into play. From the point of treatment, all the water is piped and safe from any tapering or additional chance of infiltration.
So, how much water is evaporating? The answer is 4.5% of the annual 1.2 million acre feet of water is evaporated; 16,000 acre feet from the aqueduct and 50,000 acre feet out of Lake Pleasant. We also like to mention evaporation does not equal loss. Evaporation is a natural cycle of water and everything that evaporates will eventually make its way back to the earth surface in the form of rain or snow. If you are still reading down to this point, I hope we have eased your concerns and restored your faith in our water supply. If not, consider this: the Colorado River Aqueduct and All-American Canal which pumps Colorado River water into California are about twice the size and move three times the water as CAP and they are both open too...
@@RosieOnTheHouseVideos Thank you for the clarification. I knew there were good reasons, I just didn't understand them. It also seems deceptively smaller in the videos.
@@joemcauliffe7482 You should look into the massive water pipes (as part of the world's largest water infrastructure effort) that were being installed in Libya before Gadaffi was killed. That the UN intentionally poisoned that water system with its DU (depleted uranium) attacks is known by too few persons.
Your 'pipeline' would require much more cost than an open canal system, so we accept the 10 % evavaperation rate.