> > Of course you could go on, but the cautious question to ask is:
> > 
> > How much of that was known *before* we made the mistakes?
> > 
> > As the cliche goes... hindsight is 20/20...
> 
> A true story: years ago the subdivision I lived in and was president of, had terrible flooding. The Corp of engineers had a terrrible solution; widen and deepen our bayou, even though it entered the Gulf at just 2 feet above average sea level. We formed our own group of subdivisions along the bayou, did our own hydrology engineering, gave the results to the Harris county flood comtrol district. Projects were carried out LOCALLY, and the area doesn't flood anymore.
> 
> Matt: Local decisions are always better.-Except for what I stated earlier about water flow rates: I agree.


> Of course you could go on, but the cautious question to ask is:
> 
> How much of that was known *before* we made the mistakes?
> 
> As the cliche goes... hindsight is 20/20...-A true story: years ago the subdivision I lived in and was president of, had terrible flooding. The Corp of engineers had a terrrible solution; widen and deepen our bayou, even though it entered the Gulf at just 2 feet above average sea level. We formed our own group of subdivisions along the bayou, did our own hydrology engineering, gave the results to the Harris county flood comtrol district. Projects were carried out LOCALLY, and the area doesn't flood anymore.-Matt: Local decisions are always better.


> > That might be a little harsh... I've known guys in the Army Corps. If you let each state control flows without centralized management, internal politics could get pretty dicey: Imagine if North Dakota faced drought and decided to shut the gates? Everyone downstream would be negatively affected. 
> > 
> > Water flow is too big a problem to not have some kind of national management system.
> 
> Agreed. But our government constantly gets us in trouble. Control of the delta caused water to bypass, loss of marsh land and New Orleans in more trouble than it should be in hurricanes. After screwing up the Grand Canyon with Glen Canyon dam, then having to spend hundreds of thousands in ecologic studies to get it back like it was. I could go on and on, but the point is made.-Of course you could go on, but the cautious question to ask is:-How much of that was known *before* we made the mistakes?-As the cliche goes... hindsight is 20/20...


> That might be a little harsh... I've known guys in the Army Corps. If you let each state control flows without centralized management, internal politics could get pretty dicey: Imagine if North Dakota faced drought and decided to shut the gates? Everyone downstream would be negatively affected. 
> 
> Water flow is too big a problem to not have some kind of national management system.-Agreed. But our government constantly gets us in trouble. Control of the delta caused water to bypass, loss of marsh land and New Orleans in more trouble than it should be in hurricanes. After screwing up the Grand Canyon with Glen Canyon dam, then having to spend hundreds of thousands in ecologic studies to get it back like it was. I could go on and on, but the point is made.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
> > 
> > This accounts for water vapor (clouds) too.
> 
> And we are using it stupidly. Dams destroy the ecology of rivers; look at the studies of the Colorado below the Glen Canyon dam. At least now the releases approach the natural needs. The Ogalalla aquifer is disappearing. No one cares. When it is gone it will take 6,000 years to replace. At least we can always desalinate the oceans, and sell lots of sea salt, the latest sales gimmick.
> 
> Let's not get into the question of what do we do when the artificial lakes behind the dams silt up. We use water stupidly, especially when dictated by a government.-That might be a little harsh... I've known guys in the Army Corps. If you let each state control flows without centralized management, internal politics could get pretty dicey: Imagine if North Dakota faced drought and decided to shut the gates? Everyone downstream would be negatively affected. -Water flow is too big a problem to not have some kind of national management system.

Your chart does not account for this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210171556.htm-You're right, it didn't include water in the mantle, but that quantity is pretty insignificant: The arctic ocean accounts for only 1.4% of the world's ocean volume. And it's quite clear--describing the technique--that they haven't found all that much more since 2007. Even if you're generous and double that, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the ball of water with or without on that visual chart.

Your chart does not account for this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210171556.htm-Itwas Matt's chart. Even though the water is there, how do we get it? It may percolate to the surface but over how many millenia? We need to availability of the water we can reach. Earth has life because it has so much water.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
> 
> This accounts for water vapor (clouds) too.-And we are using it stupidly. Dams destroy the ecology of rivers; look at the studies of the Colorado below the Glen Canyon dam. At least now the releases approach the natural needs. The Ogalalla aquifer is disappearing. No one cares. When it is gone it will take 6,000 years to replace. At least we can always desalinate the oceans, and sell lots of sea salt, the latest sales gimmick.-Let's not get into the question of what do we do when the artificial lakes behind the dams silt up. We use water stupidly, especially when dictated by a government.