Or better yet, invest in pipes.

imoverclocked a day ago | parent | next [-]

Canal sized pipes?

	▲	jyounker 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		400+ miles of 20m tunnels. How much cheaper is that going to be?
	▲	sophacles a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm pretty sure those are called tunnels
	▲	ch4s3 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm being a bit filp, I don't literally mean to do it.

▲

pixl97 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And suddenly you can build something else on those pipelines?

▲

jimt1234 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm sure it could be done, but it would cost a fortune. My understanding is the canals were built to distribute water to farmers, and conservation/evaporation wasn't really much of a consideration because California had plenty of water back then.

BTW, I used to swim in those same canals around Modesto and Turlock as a kid. So gross.

	▲	wahern a day ago \| parent [-]
		At least $16 billion for 45 miles. See https://www.deltaconveyanceproject.com/about-the-delta-conve... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Conveyance_Project

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Literally in the article.

▲

annoyingnoob a day ago | parent | prev [-]

According to AI, that pipe would only need to be 43 Feet in diameter, only 43 feet wide. Pretty sure they have that at Home Depot.

	▲	bluGill 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You wouldn't do it that way. You would have several 10 foot diameter pipes (which they already make, and are small enough to fit on a truck). That way when one pipe has a problem you can shut it off an still get most of your flow. A lot more expensive than an open canal though.