That’s encouraging news but our nation, thought of as the bastion of human freedom and rights, is often far from the bastion of human freedom and rights. Remember, in this country, you either pony up for medical care and medicine, or you are left to die so it’s no surprise that it isn’t any different as far as water is concerned.
You have complete freedom to charge your fellow Americans as much as you want for any public good you can privatise.
That’s Article I of the US Commercial Constitution.
I understand but, if I saw you were in need, I would give you water. I wouldn’t watch you slowly waste away. Hey, you could do stuff me in return. Bartering is a form of payment, so that would be fine with me.
You don’t need them, but it might be easier to use a multiple-pump system anyway, just so you don’t have to deal pressures as extreme.
That’s a good point. In that case, if you were trying to avoid extreme pressures, you would would not install the pumps right next to each other, but instead use a series of pumps every 500 feet of lift or so, likely with intermediate storage tanks (aka break tanks). You’d also want to utilize check valves to help prevent water hammer blowouts and pump damage when the pump(s) shut down.
Could you use a whole bunch of very narrow pipes and take advantage of capliary action?
Brian
Related: how do tall trees transport water?
I’m not sure if you know how much of a can of worms you’ve opened, there.
Clearly, the means to raise the water in whole (setting aside the hypothetical), would be nested pipes. The lower pipe has an inner pipe and seal such that drawing water up about 25 feet pulls it through the inner pipe to fill the area between the inner pipe and the outer pipe; when the gap fills to the top of the inner pipe, a ball-cock closes the top of the inner pipe and another nested pipe pushes air under the gap to force the water to the top, then the cycle repeats. The ball-cock also retains the water column while the gap packet is being forced up, hence the water draws up immediately with cycle start.
What you’ve just done is turn the entire pipe into a pump.
Except, the power mechanism (that moves the air) is still all at the top.
So if we turned the pipe into a bundle of nanotubes, could a pump at the top be used to speed up the capillary action?
No, because capillary action is not what’s used to pump water 300 feet up to Redwood trees.
I mean, it’s a big part of the equation. The evaporation at the top creates negative pressure - our water will pour out into a container, same result. The question is, whether the real problem with our pipe is it’s diameter in relationship to the forces of cohesion and adhesion. Could we even increase those forces by creating walls with an upward facing texture? (like scilia, or fish scales) And could a bundle of those, once full, be encouraged along by a top-loaded pump? (which would increase the negative pressure)
I don’t believe that in Utah property must be sold with a right to access” water, whatever that means.
Water rights are completely separate than the property rights and land is sold without the right to use water. Decades ago, my bought thousands of acres of farmland in central Utah, but it didn’t have water rights and was dirt cheap, and a terrible investment.
I think you’re conflating the right of access with a right to water and ending up with a ‘right to access water’. There is no such thing. Right of access is the legal ability to get to the property. A property without legal access is what’s known as ‘landlocked’, and in most of the US, you can’t sell a landlocked property legally. Generally speaking, if you want water on your property, go find it (as Warren Miller might have said).
Ok, the right to access for getting to the property. I was trying to figure out what you wanted to say.
Yes, you were correct except you weren’t using the term “water rights” which confused me.
No. In the West, if you want water, you need to buy water rights. Water can be running in a river through your property but you still can’t use any of it without the water rights.
Right, but what does that actually mean? Yes, everyone has a right to water, but does that mean someone can draw water out of a pond that lies on my property? Am I obligated to allow anyone to access that pond? Who is obligated to pay for digging a well or irrigation ditch?
In the American West, water rights are complicated. It’s true that just because you might own property with a river literally running through it, you may have no rights to that water. OTOH, you usually (but not always) own the rights to water IN the ground.
A zillion years ago when I was debating whether to go to law school, my mom strongly me advised me to study and specialize in water rights. She developed public policy at a high (state) level, and knew it would be a very lucrative field with excellent job security. As you might guess, it’s ironically a very dry field indeed.
Nope. Not in Utah. You need to purchase water rights before drilling a well.
In Utah you cannot simply buy land and drill a well. You must own a valid water right to use groundwater, and that right has to be in place beforeconstruction begins.
Water is scarce in some states and is strictly regulated.
There are even regulations concerning how much water can be collected from rainfall or melting snow.