If you could replace one state completely with water, which state would be best?

[Rain Man]

Assume that the state becomes a very large lake, bay, inlet, or other body of water - fresh water if it's inland, salt water if it's coastal.

I'd have to go with Nevada. If the state was too far north, it would create a lot of snow and ice and stuff, which might not be good. Nevada would create a lot of humidity and extra farmland in Arizona, Utah, and eastern California, which would greatly increase American productivity and prosperity.

[Gravedigger]

Probably Ohio, just make it another "Great" lake.

[RunKC]

Louisiana

Hell it’s already got tons of water anyway but good God is that state awful. It smells, full of crazy wildlife and has few redeeming qualities.

It’s also being infested with beaver size nubia rats

https://www.ksla.com/2019/06/04/cadd...outputType=amp

[Rain Man]

An interesting concept would be Idaho. Imagine the fantastic recreational port that the Canadians would have on the border, where people could cruise a couple of hundred miles south along the shore. Would it be a national security issue for us if Canadians were water skiing as far south as the Utah border?

And then on the other end of the massive lake, you'd have Yellowstone as a major tourist port and destination. The more I think about it, a giant Lake Pocatello would be pretty cool.

Lake Pocatello would also make Montana and Wyoming a lot more fertile.

I think Idaho is a real sleeper choice here.

[ThaVirus]

Without knowing how dropping one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world right in the middle of the country would affect weather patterns and local climates, I’d say Nevada would be the best choice.

As many have said, it’s mostly desolate desert that doesn’t do much to serve humanity. Besides Vegas, I feel like it wouldn’t displace too many Americans or flora/fauna.

Plus, California is, I think, our greatest agricultural producer..? I’d have to imagine a massive lake that size so close to the interior of Cali, which is mostly desert itself, would make that land a lot more fertile.

Not sure where we’d relocate Vegas, though.. maybe somewhere due South in northern Arizona.

[ThrobProng]

New Mexico.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Without knowing how dropping one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world right in the middle of the country would affect weather patterns and local climates, I’d say Nevada would be the best choice.

As many have said, it’s mostly desolate desert that doesn’t do much to serve humanity. Besides Vegas, I feel like it wouldn’t displace too many Americans or flora/fauna.

Plus, California is, I think, our greatest agricultural producer..? I’d have to imagine a massive lake that size so close to the interior of Cali, which is mostly desert itself, would make that land a lot more fertile.

Not sure where we’d relocate Vegas, though.. maybe somewhere due South in northern Arizona.

Just push it south and make Las Phoenix

[threebag]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Without knowing how dropping one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world right in the middle of the country would affect weather patterns and local climates, I’d say Nevada would be the best choice.

As many have said, it’s mostly desolate desert that doesn’t do much to serve humanity. Besides Vegas, I feel like it wouldn’t displace too many Americans or flora/fauna.

Plus, California is, I think, our greatest agricultural producer..? I’d have to imagine a massive lake that size so close to the interior of Cali, which is mostly desert itself, would make that land a lot more fertile.

Not sure where we’d relocate Vegas, though.. maybe somewhere due South in northern Arizona.

I’d be happy if California became a seabed

[threebag]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Just push it south and make Las Phoenix

Scho approves this, more whores.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Without knowing how dropping one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world right in the middle of the country would affect weather patterns and local climates, I’d say Nevada would be the best choice.

As many have said, it’s mostly desolate desert that doesn’t do much to serve humanity. Besides Vegas, I feel like it wouldn’t displace too many Americans or flora/fauna.

Plus, California is, I think, our greatest agricultural producer..? I’d have to imagine a massive lake that size so close to the interior of Cali, which is mostly desert itself, would make that land a lot more fertile.

Not sure where we’d relocate Vegas, though.. maybe somewhere due South in northern Arizona.

The Nevada/Utah ideas are interesting ones. It would make that Southwestern desert a lot less desert-y. And I guess water lost to evaporation would be carried East to the plains/bread basket states.

It would be interesting to study from a planetologist/climatologist perspective. How long would a Nevada-sized body of of water sustain itself? What effects would that have on the rest of the states eastward?

Same thing with kansas or Iowa or Nebraska or South Dakota.

Does anybody have Liet-Kynes number handy?

[Shiver Me Timbers]

2nd on Louisiana.
Too much work to keep the lower 1/3 of it out of the delta anyway

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

The Nevada/Utah ideas are interesting ones. It would make that Southwestern desert a lot less desert-y. And I guess water lost to evaporation would be carried East to the plains/bread basket states.

It would be interesting to study from a planetologist/climatologist perspective. How long would a Nevada-sized body of of water sustain itself? What effects would that have on the rest of the states eastward?

Same thing with kansas or Iowa or Nebraska or South Dakota.

Does anybody have Liet-Kynes number handy?

I would be curious on that one as well. I know the Rockies would prevent the majority of water from making it east. I do think that most of the water would just be recycled as the majority of the southwest gets water from the Colorado River which is snow melt.

[Rain Man]

There have been a couple of proposals over the last 150 years to create massive lakes in part of the Sahara. Back around 1900, some guy proposed a plan to build a canal from the ocean to Lake Chad that would basically make it an inland sea. And then more recently there has been thinking about doing the same thing with a big depression in Egypt that I think is below sea level. I'm not sure what the advantages of a giant salt water lake would be, though. Maybe it would cool the region down? Add fishery capacity?

It looks like the one in the Qattara Depression was about hydroelectric power where you'd run water from the Mediterranean through a big dam.

[Kiimo]

The acceptable answers are the ones fully under water in this

[Graystoke]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

An interesting concept would be Idaho. Imagine the fantastic recreational port that the Canadians would have on the border, where people could cruise a couple of hundred miles south along the shore. Would it be a national security issue for us if Canadians were water skiing as far south as the Utah border?

And then on the other end of the massive lake, you'd have Yellowstone as a major tourist port and destination. The more I think about it, a giant Lake Pocatello would be pretty cool.

Lake Pocatello would also make Montana and Wyoming a lot more fertile.

I think Idaho is a real sleeper choice here.

I don't like this pick. Idaho is fantastic place to fish, hike and recreate. Same with Utah, love these places.

I think Nevada is a better choice

[Woogieman]

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

Kansas

Rename it Lake Ogallala, never have to hear scare stories about how the aquifer is drying up, and watch tourism soar.