509

Trump Promises 'Very Large Faucet' Will Funnel Water from Oregon to Los Angeles (gizmodo.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by ptz@dubvee.org to c/politics@lemmy.world

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The former President's plan to bring water to the California desert is, like a lot of his promises, a goofy pipe-dream.

In an apparent effort to address the pressing issue of California water shortages, Trump said the following: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down and they have essentially a very large faucet. You turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it, and it’s massive, it’s as big as the wall of that building right there behind you. You turn that, and all of that water aimlessly goes into the Pacific (Ocean), and if they turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles,” he said.

Amidst his weird, almost poetic rambling, the “very large faucet” Trump seems to have been referring to is the Columbia River. The Columbia runs from a lake in British Columbia, down through Oregon and eventually ends up in the Pacific Ocean. Trump’s apparent plan is to somehow divert water from the Columbia and get it all the way down to Los Angeles. However, scientific experts who have spoken to the press have noted that not only is there currently no way to divert the water from the Oregon River to southern California, but creating such a system would likely be prohibitively expensive and inefficient.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Uhm.

Ok. He should not be in charge of the executive office. We know he's stupid but, damn.

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

He’s such a fucking embarrassment. Someone needs to stop putting microphones in front of his hamberder hole.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

As an Oregonian, I have no idea what faucet he's talking about.

Bonneville Dam maybe? 🤔

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Dam

[-] elrik@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

No it's the faucet across from the toilet he has to flush ten, sometimes fifteen times, which is also where he got this idea.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It’s the faucet he read about on truth social, which means it’s real. There was even a picture of the faucet, and we all know those can’t be faked. /s

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

~~promises~~

Deranged ramblings

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Is this faucet from the same company that will sell the takes to sweep up the leaves in the forests to stop forest fires?

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

The Columbia runs from a lake in British Columbia, down through Oregon and eventually ends up in the Pacific Ocean.

The Columbia does not run through Oregon, it is the northern border of it from just south of Kennewick, Washington to the Pacific Ocean. The only US state that the Columbia actually flows through is Washington, which makes sense since the river starts in Canada, which is north of Washington, which is north of Oregon. Odd choice of verbiage.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago

The Columbia is the border between Washington and Oregon. Cross a bridge between the two states and you will see a welcome to Oregon/welcome to Washington sign in the middle of the bridge.

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, I know. As I said, it's the northern border of the state between the Pacific and just south of Kennewick, Washington. But it does not flow through Oregon, as only the south bank is ever on Oregon land.

The Columbia enters Washington from the north and then becomes its southern border all the way to the ocean. Being entirely surrounded by Washington for part of its course, it is accurate to say that the Columbia flows through Washington. Since the Columbia only interacts with Oregon as its northern border, beginning and ending its interaction on the same side of the state, it can not be said to flow through Oregon.

But wait! What about Sauvie Island and the Columbia slough? Are those not examples of the Columbia flowing through Oregon? Yeah, but not on the same scale and there's nothing on Sauvie Island except for corn mazes and naked people.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago

But it does not flow through Oregon, as only the south bank is ever on Oregon land.

We're just arguing semantics, then.

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

So it would seem.

When you take a shower does the shower flow through you or along your edges?

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure I would say that my body really has "edges"....

[-] lady_k@real.lemmy.fan 3 points 2 weeks ago

It’s definitely an intriguing idea, but it seems like this "faucet" plan might be more complicated in practice than it sounds in theory. Getting water from the Columbia River down to Los Angeles involves not just massive infrastructure but also overcoming significant ecological and legal challenges. Plus, as the experts pointed out, it's pretty costly and inefficient. While addressing water shortages is crucial, perhaps more feasible and sustainable solutions like improving water-use efficiency and investing in desalination plants would be better routes to explore.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

We had this bullshit in Arizona too. The state GOP is convinced that Flagstaff is hoarding water somehow. That if Flagstaff just stopped hoarding water then Sedona wouldn't have any trouble. For the uninitiated, Flagstaff has what rains and that's it. It's as water stressed as the rest of the state because people won't stop moving there.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Let him. Why should we do the intellectual work of disassembling his bullshit only so the campaign can come back with what they actually mean. Just let him sound stupid.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

It's not impossible as many are thinking. However I would never vote for another Republican lying bastard asshole ever again. But think about how we move oil around the country besides stupid trains. We use pipelines. So now just build one and fill it with water rather than oil. It won't pay for itself because the price of water is so much lower than oil. But if you all want some water, it's just a long ass straw.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Well I will leave it to you to turn the faucet as large as the building behind you in a day. If you fail to do it in a day... Which doesn't exist, and therefore impossible, come back and let me know how it isnt impossible

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They sont have any pipelines running into California because the terrain makes them prohibitedly expensive. If BP and Exxon Mobile say it is cheaper to import Saudi crude to California because it is too expensive to pipe Texas crude, then there is no way. Canada has one pipeline to connect Albertam oil to Vancouver, but it is so expensive to pipe that oil across the Canadian Rockies that the pipe it downhill to Saskatchewan where it can then be pipped downhill all the way to Texas. Pipelines across mountains are just not feasible unless you are trying to move stuff from the top of the mountain to the bottom.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Much like oil it would probably be easier to haul the water via train than make a pipe which can cover that terrain.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

The issue is how much water people actually use on a given day. The average American uses 82 gallons of water every day. Los Angeles (not the surrounding cities or suburbs) needs an average of 320 million gallons of water to meet just consumer water requirements every day. Thats 10,617 train cars or 16 LR1 Oil tankers a day for just water, for just the city of Los Angeles. The only feasible solution is discouraging people from living where there isn't any water.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, I 100% agree. Trains are not feasible. They're just more feasible than a pipe over that kond of terrain.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It’s still a stupid idea. Taking the runoff from a mountain and pumping it thousands of miles is more expensive than getting water from natural aquifers locally. Heck, even building a local desalination plant and turning saltwater from the city’s coast is cheaper than this giant pipeline idea. There’s a reason NYC doesn’t need to build a pipe all the way from Niagara Falls.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024

509 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19043 readers

3801 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News