Hacker News Reader

Comment by ch4s3 | Hacker News Reader

Or better yet, invest in pipes.

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.

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

Canal sized pipes?

I'm pretty sure those are called tunnels

400+ miles of 20m tunnels. How much cheaper is that going to be?

I'm being a bit filp, I don't literally mean to do it.

And suddenly you can build something else on those pipelines?

Literally in the article.

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.

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.

https://wonderfulengineering.com/world-record-underwater-shi...

Congratulations for their stunt. That doesn't mean anyone else should follow that though. There are lots of disadvantages to large tunnels and large pipes and so I would still recommend for most that a different path should be taken.

As an engineer and expert on this though, I'm not an expert. I've looked into it just enough to know that I would expect that it would just not be worth it, but maybe I'm wrong for your case

> it would just not be worth it

That is my entire point. Even with many smaller pipes it has not been worth it. A big trench is just more affordable and covering it is probably a better option than replacing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com