The proposed Keystone oil pipeline is stalled in Washington; on that, I offer no opinion either way.

But for a long time, I have thought about the possibility of building pipelines for another purpose: moving water. I hope I don’t sound like a crazy person, but with the recent news about the severe drought in California and the annual spring floods, I have decided to send this letter.

I know that I am absolutely out of my element on this subject. We construct dams all over the country, but then why not the possibility of building water pipelines? Recent news reports talk about an annual event – widespread flooding in the center of the country – with drought and dry conditions just hundreds of miles away.

Why can’t those floodwaters be diverted to other areas that desperately need it? For decades there have been droughts in California, in Arizona and other parts of the Southwest, with near-empty reservoirs and cattle farmers forced to sell their thirsty herds resulting in sky-high beef prices – all in desperate need of water.

President Eisenhower and the U.S. government started building this country’s interstate highway system, which has paid spectacular benefits.

So why not think about the enormous benefits of spending our tax dollars on the construction of pipelines pumping water from our major rivers and contributories to other areas of the country in need? It would help solve many problems; help minimize spring floods, send water west and southwest and put thousands to work.

I realize that there are many pros and cons with the Keystone project; in particular, environmental ones. But I ask you: Which would a thirsty and hungry person choose – a gallon of water and a loaf of bread, or a barrel of oil?

Peter Greene