What would Atlanta or Raleigh do if they ran out of water?

5 comments

• casualguy

  •

  17 years ago

  For anyone not from the area or whomever doesn't know about the extreme drought, I have been hearing reports that both cities only have around 80 days of water left. Maybe the pipes can be extended farther out into the reservoirs to add to that. That would really suck to buy a half million to million dollar home on the lake in Atlanta and have the value drop in half due to living next to a mud pit now.
• lopaw

  •

  17 years ago

  Sooo....I guess hitting up Atlanta or Raleigh for some H2O to help put out our raging wildfires is out of the question, huh?
• casualguy

  •

  17 years ago

  Actually this could end up being like Katrina II unless a bunch of rain comes. I read many lakes in Georgia and I believe South Carolina are ok except the ones controlled by the Army Corps who have been letting the water go out. Apparently in the Atlanta area, I read the corps accidenlty released over a billion gallons of water lowering the lake reservoir for Atlanta by 3 feet. I read there was some endangered species of mollusk they wanted to preserve. That water would have provided over 120 additional days of drinking water. It did rain some. Before the rain, I heard Atlanta only had around 80 days left.
  
  I'm reading about lakes not controlled by the corps are ok which makes me think this could be another case of severe mismanagement by our government and a disaster in the making especially if most businesses in Atlanta etc. have to start shutting down due to lack of water.
  
  I guess this story isn't of much concern to those on the west coast currently involved in the wildfire disaster. I didn't intend it to be though. I think this story will have a national impact if it sinks the economy in the south with water rationing and businesses getting shut down en mass if drinking water becomes scarce. However we still have 2 or 3 months in the bigger cities. The corps doesn't control my local lake reservoir, no problem where I live at.
• casualguy

  •

  17 years ago

  As far as the situation in the wildfire area, it's just my opinion but if the fire season is going to last 2 months longer now on average due to global warming, it seems like it might be helpful not to layoff the firefighters until later. I read many firefighters were recently let go. I read they typically only work during the summer months anyway. However I also read some are being recalled back from their layoff.
  
  Then I also heard for the last 100 years, the policy of don't let the smaller fires burn and just put them out has made the current situation worse in the entire west. It doesn't help when people build in the middle of the woods and firefighters try to put out those fires to protect the buildings. People not evacuating also means firefighters are busy trying to save lives when the wind changes unexpectedly rather than trying to put out the fires. I heard over a million people have evacuated and I certainly wouldn't want it on my head that I stayed and forced some firefighter to make an effort to save my life while he could have saved someone's house instead. It's bad in the west and shaping up to be bad in the southeast.
• lopaw

  •

  17 years ago

  You're absolutely right about foolish people insisting on building their McMansions up in the heavily wooded mountainous areas. It's just like those other nincompoops that just keep rebuilding over & over again in places like Malibu, where there is one mudslide after another. First you have the fires due to drought conditions (and a few arsonists), and then in wintertime the now-barren slopes give way under rainfall and guess what? Now it MUDSLIDE SEASON! A vicious circle that will never end as long as people keep building there.