The USFG should help save the planet by flooding Death Valley with sea water

I had never thought this much about the subject before! Now on to rebuttals: ". .. the Hoover Dam in 1936 created a vast inland lake . .. with no ill-effects on the environment. " "The changes in water flow and use caused by Hoover Dam's construction and operation have had a large impact on the Colorado River Delta. [99] The construction of the dam has been credited as causing the decline of this estuarine ecosystem. .. The Colorado River had experienced natural flooding before the construction of the Hoover Dam. The dam eliminated the natural flooding, which imperiled many species adapted to the flooding, including both plants and animals. [102] The construction of the dam devastated the populations of native fish in the river downstream from the dam. [103] Four species of fish native to the Colorado River, the Bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, Humpback chub, and Razorback sucker, are currently listed as endangered. "[1] ". .. Death Valley seems an odd choice to base a settlement but it wasn"t really the tribe"s idea. .. " The Timbishas have been there quite a long time, though their lands were once more extensive: "Death Valley is home to the Timbisha tribe of Native Americans, formerly known as the Panamint Shoshone, who have inhabited the valley for at least the past 1000 years. " [2] I do not believe that they would be as easy to move as Pro proposes. "It is, of course true, that flooding Death Valley will not, in itself, completely mitigate the rise in sea levels caused by global warming but it would be a step in the right direction. Furthermore, it would set a good example for other nations that have land depressions close to the sea, such as Ethiopia / Eritrea / Djibouti (The Afar Depression), Egypt (The Qattara Depression) and Western Sahara / Morocco (The Sebjet Tah Depression). " I refer back to my point (which I corrected in the comments to the actual value, as I misplaced a decimal in the Round) that filling the entirety of Death Valley would lower sea levels by less than the thickness of a dollar bill. Even if all of the places Pro suggested did get filled with seawater (an unlikely proposition), the effect on sea levels would be negligible. "The cost of this project would be around $430 million," I'm not sure how that number was produced. First, while I mostly conceded Pro's points before, I must now say that I actually checked the distance from Death Valley to the Ocean on the map, and found the absolute shortest distance to be around 150 miles, which is different than the 120 my opponent suggested as the "approximate" distance. However, that figure does not account for the multiple mountain ranges that must be bored through or gone over. I think that a more accurate estimate of necessary pipeline length is at least 200 miles (For the record, while I technically had conceded the "distance" point, I did on the basis of it being approximate; and besides, I'm just as technically quibbling now about the fact that "necessary pipeline length" hadn't been established) Using the sources you provided (the last two in your list), I computed a very different series of possible estimates: The link to the Texas project says their 40-mile project could "cost the city $142.5 million and raise water rates for customers. ", you're talking about 5 times that, which would make it (if the two pipelines directly correlated, ) $712.5 Million. The article mentions 35,000 acre feet per year. AFY is part of the cost of any pipeline (a tiny pipe is cheaper to make longer than a big pipe), so I do not believe these projects correlate. [3] The PDF source lists the following projects: Table B. Projects in the Pipeline Delivery Volume Transbasin Project Cost Length (mi) Flaming Gorge Pipeline, WY and CO 250,000 $6 BB 500 Lake Powell Pipeline Project, AZ and UT 100,000 $1.064 BB 158 Yampa River Pumpback, CO 300,000 $3.2 BB to Front Range 250 $3.9 BB to Denver Gallup-Navajo Pipeline Project, NM 35,893 $864 MM 260 Narrows Project 5,400 $40.3 MM 16.8 [4] 300,000 acre feet per year (9.77554286 " 10^10 gallons, according to Google) is not quite 1% of the total volume of Death Valley, which seems to make it a reasonable amount to use (if anything a low estimate of evaporation). Cost seems to correlate to both distance and AFY for these projects. The "Yampa River Pumpback" seems to be the closest example, which had a mileage quite close to the straight line mileage from DV to the ocean, and a <1% total lake volume replacement per year. The cost, as can be seen, for that project is $3.2-3.9 Billion. Even if we assume a much lower volume of transport, and look at the Lake Powell Pipeline Project, that is over a Billion dollars for 158 miles, which is closer to Pro's original number, but still quote short of what I believe is the more reasonable estimate. Billions of dollars are a significant amount of money. ". .. for the sake of bringing valuable employment to a neglected and impoverished part of Nevada;" A possibility, but by no means a certainty ". .. for the sake of bringing tourist-dollars into the area;" Ditto ". .. for the sake of the local red Indians. .. " No real benefit has been posited for the local Native American tribe, so I'm not sure how it would be for their "sake". Also, (not to seem like a concern troll) I believe "red Indian" is considered an offensive term. ". .. most of all, to help save the planet: Death Valley should be flooded. " Again, I don't think you've established how it would help save the planet. In conclusion, I believe that Pro has failed to provide proof of any substantive benefits to flooding Death Valley, and has significantly underestimated the cost. Vote Con. Thanks! [1] -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Following sources originally provided by Pro: [3] -- . http://www.caller.com... [4] -- . http://www.nrdc.org...