[knarf]

I don't think the pipeline would need to rely on floods per se'

Here in SW Pa, we have a lot of water .... and the Mississippi can be tapped, and the Ohio

Look ... I'm not saying it's the magic pill ... but it IS an idea I think engineers could discuss

[umgud]

The envirowhacko’s would fight this.

[biggerten]

The Mississippi can at times get too low and be closed to shipping, it is a vital artery. The Great Lakes cannot be tapped, again the need to keep shipping channels deep enough. Besides, that would involve Canada as well. Nope, as someone said, move the people to the water makes the most sense.

[hinckley buzzard]

The surface elevation of Lake Superior, the westernmost of the Great Lakes and the highest, is 600 feet above sea level. Maybe you would like to pump that water consistently uphill across hundreds of miles to an elevation of several thousands of feet in Colorado, much less California? Cheap and easy. You betcha.

[Kirkwood]

Tapping the Mississippi would be a terrible idea. There is a huge ocean next to California. You may have heard of it. Tap that.

[bert]

——and the Mississippi can be tapped,——

no, it can’t

It is up hill for more than a thousand miles to the continental divide. There are mountains. The water won’t flow up hill

[citizen]

You really think Kalifornians will pay the huge costs of collecting & pumping water from 500, 1000, 1500 miles or farther? Say, 50 cents/gallon? More if the source water isn’t free. Buying the necessary rights-of-way, constructing (in an environmentally sensitive way), staffing and maintaining pipelines is not cheap.
I don’t think so either.
Not to mention, there are really few places that will be willing to give of what water they have, even for fair payment. I live in a state where the water rights are hotly disputed with neighboring states.

This makes about as much sense as those folks proposing to power the world using roadways made of solar cells. No joke, they are dead serious. Deluded but serious.