Great Lakes fending off horde of sippers in 'water war'

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-water-warsmay27,0,4894872.story

By Tim Jones | Tribune correspondent
5:58 PM CDT, May 26, 2008

NEW BERLIN, Wis. — Piece by piece, a 5,500-mile wall around the Great Lakes is going up. You can't see it, but construction is progressing nicely, along with an implied neon sign that flashes, "Hands off—it's our water."

The legal pilings for a 1,000-mile segment of the wall are scheduled to be sunk Tuesday when Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle finalizes his state's approval of the so-called Great Lakes Compact, a multi-state agreement designed to protect and restrict access to nearly 20 percent of the world's supply of fresh water, contained in the five Great Lakes.

And after that will come Ohio, where later this week the legislature is expected to make it the sixth state to endorse the water agreement and advance a strong regional warning to chronically dry regions of the South and West that Great Lakes water is staying here.

"The Great Lakes are our Grand Canyon. It's our resource to protect, it's the backbone of the region," said Joel Brammeier , vice president for policy at the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

[otherlander]

1. I LOVE what passes for a water war in this country.

[SmokingJacket]

2. Yeah, you live in Arizona because it doesn't rain, then you want

our water... our reward for living in a shitty climate!

Fugeddaboutit!

You want our water, come move back here and revitalize our crap economy.

[ulysses]

3. I suppose there are all sorts of arguments

one can advance in favor of this, and I can certainly see the reason in many of them. I just wonder where this ends.

[hornblast]

5. I supported Bill Richardson until he said...

in so many words, we should use the Great Lakes to water the southwest.

NO WAY! Much as I respect Bill Richardson, I will fight very hard to keep the water up here. Fortunately, the Wisconsin legislature <I>finally</I> passed the Great Lakes Compact, and Gov. Doyle signed it. While I said in 2000 that the next war would be over water, it was before BushCo rigged the vote and started their latest war for oil.....

[cynatnite]

8. What's wrong with sharing water? n/t

[NutmegYankee]

11. Fossil water.

The Great lakes would not refill and shipping would be destroyed. Desert whiners don't consider that.

[cynatnite]

14. The Great Lakes' problem is shared by 90% of the world's lakes...

Seems to me that the problem isn't people drinking it. It's an environmental issue. Climate change has greatly contributed to the problems of the world's lakes.

http://www.greatlakeseducation.org/about_isea/?id=204

Denying people drinking water is not going to solve the problems.

[shraby]

19. I don't know about the others, but Lake Michigan

is really low right now. The beaches are getting bigger ever year.

[NNN0LHI]

27. The level of Lake Superior hit an all-time low in 2006

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/12/21/superiorlevels/

Low level of Lake Superior raises concern and costs

by Bob Kelleher, Minnesota Public Radio
December 26, 2006

The level of Lake Superior recently hit an all-time low--at least in recorded history. That's making trouble for boaters, and especially for the big ore freighters.

Duluth, Minn. — Jim Sharrow stands next to a boat dock, with posts sunken into the rocks. They stick well above the frozen water surface. It's dramatic evidence of the low lake level.

"This post was six inches submerged in water. That was in 2006, over most of the summer," Sharrow says. "This summer the actual water level was about eight to 10 inches below that, typically. And right now it has come down so far that we're about two feet out of the water, and there's a whole shoreline slope that's developed with this receding water line."

[malakai2]

30. If people want drinking water they can move out of the desert

Water is where it is, sunshine is where it is, and those areas don't always overlap. People can decide what is more necessary to their well-being and live accordingly. Simple, I would think.

But supposing we'd go ahead and reward people who settled in the desert for failing to plan for water shortages...how would we transport the water? Duluth has an elevation of 701 feet above sea level, Chicago has an elevation of 586 feet above sea level. Denver sits at 5280 feet, San Angelo at 1848, Albuquerque at 5312, El Paso at 3695, and Tucson at 2410. Even Phoenix is 1117 feet above sea level. Water is a heavy fluid that flows downhill...pushing it a few hundred to several thousand feet uphill over the course of a couple thousand miles is technically possible but energy intensive and expensive. Might be just a bit cost prohibitive now, and with energy costs rising I don't see how that would change.

Even if we could overcome the energy cost and had the necessary capital to spare, what would we be accomplishing? Suddenly water would no longer be as limiting a resource as it is in those states, and the pressure to conserve or alter settlement patterns diminishes. That leads to population growth and inefficient development patterns (from a water use perspective), so that when at some point in the future there is a supply disruption, it's a disaster rather than an inconvenience. Which takes me back to my first comment. Water is where it is, sunshine is where it is, and those areas don't always overlap, etc.

[cynatnite]

32. My husband and I considering moving our family to southern New Mexico...

His health isn't too good and we think that climate would help him. My son shouldn't pay for your hoarding any more than you should pay for someone hoarding of resources that you might need.

There are a lot of people who live in these desert areas, including Hopi and Navajo Indians, who don't have the money to move in order to have the luxury of water.

What happens to those folks who are poor and have the bad luck of being born in a different part of the world?

This kind of attitude is just disgusting :puke: It's like telling a starving child in Ethiopia 'Fuck off. You were born in the wrong country.'

Actually, the attitude is closer to what the repukes said about the people who couldn't leave New Orleans when Katrina hit. They blamed them rather than taking into consideration they were poor and couldn't leave.

[Critters2]

50. It's a desert. Or didn't you hear? nt

[Enthusiast]

55. Ethiopia obviously can't

Ethiopia obviously can't support as great a population as can countries with greater annual rainfall and with greater agricultural potential. This is something that people of the earth must come to grips with, eventually. There really are limits to population growth. The attitude isn't "fuck off", it's "fuck less".

The Navajo and Hopi were doing just fine until Europeans came and fucked things up for them.

[Scout]

98. thanks, that's an excellent point

"The Navajo and Hopi were doing just fine until Europeans came and fucked things up for them."

[Tesha]

107. Actually, with modern technology, you can fuck all you want...

...without having eighteen kids as a result. And as is becoming
increasingly evident even to morons who move to the desert and
then wonder why they're parched, the Earth's resources are
limited.

Tesha

[Enthusiast]

62. Only asshole Republicans did this.

"Actually, the attitude is closer to what the repukes said about the people who couldn't leave New Orleans when Katrina hit. They blamed them rather than taking into consideration they were poor and couldn't leave."

Bullshit!

But the thousands of people moving their homes to the desert S.W. should reconsider because they are getting zero Great Lakes water. Population centers should be near resources, not far far away from them. Historically, populations increased in areas for a reason, better access to resources. Now we want to change everything? I don't think so. This is just another really stupid idea.

[malakai2]

66. I live in western South Dakota

So I'm not hoarding anything more than prairie dogs. My job, however, gives me some insight into how and why people settle in the places they do, what drives settlement numbers and patterns, and how the people settling an area build out to and then exceed the physical limitations of the place in which they live.

Where I live, the physical limits to human occupation were exceeded shortly after the Homestead Act encouraged people to move out onto the plains. People came out here trying to eke out a living on a quarter section of land, which meant living a balancing act between just managing to scrape by during wet years and failing in the dry years. The settler numbers fell off greatly a few decades later, and the population continues to fall as the young people in the area tend to move out, the older residents tend to die out, and nobody moves in. Even heavy subsidies for grazing and grain crop production are not enough to entice a younger generation to settle out here because the physical characteristics of the place pretty much require an agricultural producer to work a much larger acreage than is typically available to newcomers.

Prior to extensive European settlement, the tribes and trappers in the area lived in the same are much more comfortably because they were present at a lower density and because their settlement movement patterns took what the local landscape and climate gave them. The much smaller, dispersed population could gather wild edibles seasonally, and could hunt bison and elk that grazed on what was effectively a 200 million acre unfenced pasture. Even then, seasonal movement of groups was necessary unless they lived along major rivers that afforded food and water year round. What they had back then was in no way comparable to the settlement pattern now, where grain farmers mine the groundwater to pull in small margins in good years, ranchers continually mortgage future production by overgrazing their pastures in the current year, and people are anchored to patchwork acreages of sizes insufficient to allow comfortable incomes under the current economic conditions.

I see a some significant similarity in what has happened in the southwest and southeast, though the southwest is the one that makes me wonder what people were thinking. The place was already settled to capacity by the local tribes to which you refer, but European settlers saw a nice dry, warm, sunny climate with minimal local resistance to settlement and both snowpack and groundwater to mine. Now the descendants of past settlers and continual new crops of settlers are looking to push even further past the physical limits of the place, limits that have been obvious for decades, by way of heavy Federal subsidy that will be necessary to pay for shipping that water, and at the expense of people who chose to live around the resource at issue. Care to explain to me how well-to-do people with the money and wherewithal to chose where they live, who chose to live in a desert and then bitch about the lack of water, are at all comparable to subsistence farmers suffering through drought and genocide, or to a city that has been denied basic emergency aid in the wake of a hurricane? Because I don't see it. I see a lot of people who want the comfort of an arid climate without the hardship, and expect that everyone else will bend over backward to grant them their wishes. That strikes me as a Republican mindset.

[Enthusiast]

79. malakai2, that was one excellent post.

Republican mindset is right!

Your post puts things in perspective for those that have no historical understanding.

There really are limits to human population growth. This should be understood by all. These limits are determined by what the surrounding region of habitation can produce in the way of resources.

[Matariki]

127. Don't forget to mention all those golf courses, pools and green lawns they want

in the desert :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

148. I live in northern SD, and moved to SD from OH

three years ago and this is spot-on, thank you! I lived right next to Lake Erie in Ohio and am well aware of the integral role that the Great Lakes plays in the economic well-being of the entire region served by them as well as just how delicate the GL environmentally and in regards to ecosystems. Any water-sharing with far-away regions may very well permanently destroy the whole GL system, which is why most GL-region residents are as worried and feel as strongly as they do. It is not selfishness in any way at all, it is self-preservation and concerns over preserving what is irreplaceable and can never be brought back.

If people want to move to the desert, they shouldn't whine about not being able to take another region's water and economic lifeblood from them.

[Marrah_G]

106. But you are choosing to move to an area you know has little water.

[Canuckistanian]

60. That's a thoughtful anaysis, thanks

"Water is where it is, sunshine is where it is"

Great Lakes water will never reach the southwest and forcing it to do so will help neither the southwest nor the great lakes region in the long run.

And, as you mention, it will take a gargantuan energy expenditure to make it happen.

Someone should sit down with Gov. Richardson and explain to him the basic facts here.

[LanternWaste]

153. Are there any fully independent and self-sufficient locales in the United States?

Are there any fully independent and self-sufficient locales (resource-wise) in the United States?

If not, then is seems to me that distribution of vital resources is both a common good and a common interest.


Edited:clarity

[Enthusiast]

37. Drinking water?

It wouldn't be just drinking water. It would be another resource to speculate over. They would use it to irrigate a desert. No Great Lakes water should go anywhere except down the Saint Lawrence and eventually out to sea. It ecological suicide to consider anything else.

[TheMightyFavog]

45. You want Great lakes Water? Simple solution.

Move back to the Great Lakes states.


Or, here's an idea, practice conservation. Shut down all those water wasting golf courses. (What kind of moron puts golf courses in places where it doesn't rain in the first place?)

[Lifetimedem]

159. Exactily !

Let those that need water move to it, instead of diverting it and upsetting the native eco system


Come home folks ...we missed you :)

[Scout]

97. people need to live where the water is....

don't move to the fucking desert then complain that you need water!

All those Michiganders that bailed in the 70s and 80s and moved to Arizona can fuck themselves. You're not taking the water with you...

[Yavapai]

142. How about a trade?

You send us water, we will erect large mirrors and send you some sunshine.... :evilgrin:

[bean fidhleir]

100. "Denying people drinking water is not going to solve the problems."

The arid southwest is a fragile ecosystem that is nearly uninhabitable by mammals. It will support a few humans who are willing to live the way the Apache traditionally lived. It will *not* support people who want to live with all the benefits of a temperate rain-drenched climate but without the temperature fluctuations or rain.

It's *Nature* that's "denying people drinking water", and people need to get over themselves.

[jwirr]

22. One of the facts regarding the discovery of oil is that we have for

years been able to do things that we will not be able to do after depletion.

One of those things is live in areas where there is not enough water because it would be impossible to pump the water needed to these areas once cheap oil is gone. We need to look at what is going to be possible and give up the impossible. After the water is used up by continuing life as it is now lived where are you going for your water?

Kunstler in his book The Long Emergency recognizes the implications of global warming on the Southwest and it is not good. If he is correct then using up what little water we have left to live in a desert is not a good idea.

[knitter4democracy]

46. It's far more complicated than that.

First of all, Michigan's lost a lot of jobs to the Southwest, so many here aren't too happy with the idea of them taking our water, too.

Secondly, it would be a commodity, a huge natural resource that the environment is built around, sold to the highest bidder, leaving us a desert after it's gone. Not smart.

Look at what the Soviets did to Lake Baikal--they built a papermill on the most pristine freshwater lake in the world and have drained much of the rest. Entirely stupid. We've done that to the Great Lakes several times over (papermills, factories, shipping lanes dredged to release the PCBs, and more). How is it not stupid?

[notadmblnd]

147. Nothing is wrong with sharing water, come here and get your drink.

but it's not leaving the region.

[Indenturedebtor]

96. Yeah I lost a LOT of respect for him when he said that.

And I live in AZ! His idea was just plain rediculous in so many ways it's rediculous to even speak of it!

[Selatius]

4. Y'know, this is how civil wars start: When different regions of a country fight over resources.

I can see states like Alabama and Georgia getting seriously pissed about not getting water from states like Michigan or Pennsylvania because of the drought conditions in the South.

[lonestarnot]

6. Water resources, our next war, and you can't drink oil.

[ulysses]

13. law of unintended consequences:

"No, you can't have our water, but you CAN move up here to revitalize our economy and make our region as overpopulated as north Georgia (where I am) is now."

We need to figure out how to deal with this. There's enough water if we stop doing stupid shit with it.

[Enthusiast]

39. Growing crops in areas that need constant irrigation

Growing crops in areas that need constant irrigation is some stupid shit!

[Critters2]

40. Like moving to the desert? Stupid shit like that? nt

[lonestarnot]

68. And a desert that is batshit crazy for richie golfers.

[ulysses]

72. actually, I had in mind cosmetic things like watering lawns.

The "you're an idiot for moving there" argument seems like a non-starter to me, even if only because the people are already where they are. "You shouldn't be there in the first place" isn't much of a problem-solver.

[bean fidhleir]

105. The only people who have the right to live there are those willing to live within

the natural constraints of the environment. Our delusional hubris is killing everyone around us and we *must* abandon it if we want to stay in business as a species.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. Stupid shit, like pumping it into a desert? nt

[NEOBuckeye]

26. That's too bad. People in the South and West will just have to move back North.

There isn't a practical reason in the world why water from the Great Lakes should be diverted to support the over-development of regions that never had a practical outlook on development in the first place. This particularly applies to the arid West. And yet Americans are moving out to the desert in droves. For what reason? Cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas should not exist at their present levels because there simply isn't enough water to sustain populations in these areas for the long term.

It seems this may now also apply to cities like Atlanta and Charlotte in the South, which have become sprawling metropolises to the point that they are putting a strain on that region's natural resources.

What's a practical solution? Re-building and re-populating the cities in the Great Lakes basin, places like Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Toledo, Buffalo, Minneapolis and Chicago. By doing so, we keep water in the Great Lakes area where it belongs.

[ulysses]

28. 1. what "back"? not everyone came from "back east".

2. If everyone in the SE and SW moved "back" to the Great Lakes region, what's the difference in the impact on the Lakes?

[Tesha]

110. One difference, of course, is that if you live *WITHIN* the watershed...

then at least some of the water that you use returns to the
water supply.

Tesha

[Release The Hounds]

157. Sustainability

[Selatius]

29. Y'know, I would advance the argument that perhaps the US should be broken into several nations.

If people in a house can't get along, maybe it's time for a separation.

[Enthusiast]

41. So what kind of mental giant are you?

You are an advocate for civil war? Maybe you could join up and take the first bullet.

[Selatius]

93. Heh, yet you automatically preclude any idea of a peaceful separation. Who's the mental giant? nt

[Marrah_G]

109. Oh relax, it will happen someday- remember that even Rome fell.

Even the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc etc all eventually fell.

To assume it can never happen here is a bit naive. The posters is correct in thinking that these things often happen while fighting over resources.

[Marrah_G]

108. I think it will before long.

Our population has grown to large to continue this way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. The hell of it is, all those people that move to the desert don't want

to live in a desert. That's why they have their green grass lawns, their golf courses, their swimming pools. They could live very well on a quarter the water they use, if they would just admit that they live in a fucking desert. Golf was created in Scotland - there are no deserts in Scotland. An unBELIEVABLE amount of water is needed to maintain a desert golf course. Put that same golf course in Pennsylvania, and all you gotta do is mow.

[SidDithers]

34. States like Michigan and Penn don't own that water...

'cause those Great Lakes have northern borders too. There are International agreements about the use of Great Lakes water.

Sid

[Scout]

99. yes, and Canada doesn't want the Great Lakes water going anywhere either n/t

[knitter4democracy]

7. Of course we need to protect them. Try telling the MI GOP that, though.

All they can see are the dollar signs. Sick.

The Lakes are low and have been for awhile. This winter helped with the heavy snowfall, but they're still a lot lower than they should be--than where they were 20 years ago, let alone 120 years ago. Invasive species, pollution, and people stealing the water are all threats we need to fight against. Up north, people tell of ships riding empty up through the Lakes and then loading up on water and shipping it out without the government knowing about it. These same ships often empty out their ocean ballast with all their invasive species in the water in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie, too.

The Great Lakes do not exist for people to drink. They are a wonderful part of our environment that we're only now beginning to understand. Made by the glaciers, they depend on rain and snow to keep their levels up, and they provide a home to countless species. They are not there for us to drink but instead for us to protect.

[cynatnite]

10. The Great Lakes supply over 30 million people drinking water...

The problems the Great Lakes have is environmental. In fact, the Great Lakes have the same problem as 90% of the world's lakes. Drinking it isn't the problem.

http://www.greatlakeseducation.org/about_isea/?id=204

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Drinking it isn't the problem - but selling it off to the desert states

would be an environmental disaster worse than all the current threats combined.

[knitter4democracy]

49. Exactly.

Putting in a pipeline to Vegas would drain us down to desert. Not smart.

[knitter4democracy]

48. It's part of it, though.

People up north talk of huge ships riding high (meaning empty) into the lake, not stopping anywhere big, and then riding really low. Everyone I've talked with who's seen it thinks they're tanking up on water and shipping it out.

[Blue_Tires]

126. wow...that's crazy if true

[knitter4democracy]

129. It's all the talk up north.

Scary.

[elfin]

9. Forget Oil -- It's all about WATER

I live on the "bad" side of the Subcontinental Divide in Wisconsin but praise the efforts of our governor in this regard.

The Great Lake States have an invaluable resource, which, I fear will be sucked away by thirsty entities, leaving devastation down the road.

Why not come to us? We need the influx of environmentally conscious industry. (Oops - is there such a thing now?) We are very nifty places to live and play.

Don't think of these laws as a "wall" - think of them as an attempt to save one of our greatest natural resources.

The cynic in me says that no matter what these states do (and Canada) -- if we have yet another Rethug regime at the highest levels, the Supreme Court will find a way to declare the region as vital to our "security" to build pipelines elsewhere and destroy the Great Lakes, regardless of the environmental impact.

[hedgehog]

152. You bring up a good point that most people are unaware of -

the compact is so strict about keeping Great Lakes Water within the Great Lakes basin that the water can not even be diverted to parts of the adjoining state outside the basin. There is a town in Wisconsin that's about 10 miles away from the dividing line. The town is being forced to drill a well rather than take the cheaper alternative of piping water from the lake. There's a lot of bluster about "our" water and "bring your industry back to our state if you want our water", but it's really about preserving a natural resource the best way we know how.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. I think it will be inevitable that this country will install a nationwide aqueduct system.

We need better fresh water management, there is no doubt. When I see floods, I think that we need more and larger reservoirs. When I see lakes low and droughts, I think it only makes sense that water be moved when needed from place to place.

Virtually every drop of drinking water in Los Angeles gets there after having traveled hundreds of miles and climbed up and over a mountain range. It can be done.

The natural flow of the Great Lakes is into the Atlantic. When there is abundance, it should be shared.

There's a WPA project for you.

The National Aqueduct system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. That natural flow into the Atlantic has the environmental effect of

sustaining north atlantic fisheries. You want to see the St Lawrence seaway looking like the outflow (if it can be called that) of the Colorado, after all its water has been sucked off to water LA and the central valley in California?

[A HERETIC I AM]

84. There is no reason to think the St. Lawrence Seaway would become a trickle.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't suggest that it be shut off and the water be diverted to Atlanta (or where ever). What I suggest is exactly what I stated. When there is a surplus (in a given area) it should be shared.

If the Columbia Basin has a record snowpack and Texas has not had a drop of rain for years, water can and should be moved.

[malakai2]

87. What surplus?

How would a surplus be defined? What if the full flow each year, even wet years, is spoken for under water rights claims and species protection laws?

Assuming surplus could be defined, wouldn't it be easier and much more cost effective to store it on site in reservoirs? Not that reservoirs are are all that great (capital cost, eminent domain issues, sedimentation, evaporative loss, biodiversity impacts, etc.), but how much would it cost to build a transportation network that connects many regions sufficient to ensure access to all people in all years?

Would the regions being mined for water have some veto power over irresponsible development decisions in regions that are constant water sinks and never water sources? Why should water rich areas be expected to part with a valuable local resource to subsidize conscious yet poor decisions elsewhere?

Who is responsible if a dry region in the grip of a sustained drought is suddenly cut off from water supplies due to disaster elsewhere? I envision cities in the southwest going with the standard retail "just in time" system for water delivery in lean times, which could mean death by dehydration for people if development in those areas continues and supply is suddenly disrupted.

Will locales be able to sell water at market prices, or will rates be fixed by law? Incentive to part with local resources gets to be pretty small if no compensation comes back the other way.

Moving water to places that need is great on first read, but on closer examination all I see is problem after problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. There was no reason 50 years ago to think the Colorado would

become a trickle, either.

It's called "enabling".

Desert regions were not designed for dense populations. Sending them 'surplus' water only encourages continued expansion and growth in areas where expansion and growth are unsustainable. Eventually you have a situation where you have a million people in a desert city and no more surplus water to send to them. What do you do then?

Far better to let those regions become naturally balanced and support populations that are sustainable, then to prop up unsustainable populations.

[Xithras]

119. Actually, you have your Central Valley reference a bit backwards there.

The California Central Valley has always had plenty of water, our canals are just to redistribute that water a bit more evenly within the existing watershed. No water from the Colorado ends up here.

Much of our water DOES get piped south to L.A. though. Pissing in the aqueduct is an old past-time in some of the rural areas of the valley :)

[Critters2]

42. Or those who moved to the South and southwest for the heat and dry air,

could move where the water is.

There's no reason to move the Great Lakes water to people who made conscious decisions to live in places without adequate resources.

[A HERETIC I AM]

85. People move to various regions in this country for a variety of reasons....

They vary along health and comfort lines, but it is a fact that humans prefer, as a general rule, to be warm instead of cold.

The region near El Centro, California is very arid, but once irrigated, produces a massive amount of food. Likewise the upper plateaus of Idaho and Oregon. They both benefit from movement of water and produce massive amounts of food.

[malakai2]

90. But those two things are not similar

In one case, a conscious decision to live in an arid region is subsidized at the expense of another region. The resource flow is in one direction, to folks of the 'go ahead and stay near the Great Lakes and freeze to death in the dark' mindset. In the other case, water goes one way and food goes the other. Everybody gives up something to get something.

Not that arid land production is necessary or even desirable. Food crops were locally grown and seasonal less than a century ago, and as transportation becomes more expensive local production may become competitive again despite local climate issues. This still comes back around to the question of physical limitations. If water becomes truly limiting in western states, I'd expect increasingly severe restrictions on waste (green lawns, golf courses, fountains, swimming pools, etc.), a redrafting of water rights laws to favor human consumption over agriculture, real brakes on development and population growth, and a contraction of local agricultural production to what is necessary for regional consumption, maybe with a recalculation of average discharge rates using a larger data set. That we aren't to that point yet suggests to me that this is being driven by people who want both the temperatures and lack of cloudy, rainy days the desert provides, while not sacrificing the water a more temperate, northeastern climate provides, and that's just greedy.

[bean fidhleir]

114. If they prefer to be warm, they should put on a sweater!

People should not move to an ecosystem that cannot support them. Feynman said it perfectly after Challenger: Nature cannot be fooled.

People must learn to live with the rough as well as the smooth.

[Enthusiast]

65. OMG! This is exactly why we shouldn't do this.

"Virtually every drop of drinking water in Los Angeles gets there after having traveled hundreds of miles and climbed up and over a mountain range."

And this is what passes for a good idea?

[A HERETIC I AM]

83. It does not pass for a good idea. It is however, the reality.

The solution to this problem will not be the depopulation of the LA Basin.

But it does teach that large amounts of water can be moved hundreds if not thousands of miles in a controlled way.

I'm well aware that large populations live in arid regions. Again, it can be done and is being done in California.

[Fox Mulder]

15. The Great Lakes should be protected.

Why ship water to the SE and SW because people were stupid enough to move there?

We need it up here.

[ulysses]

16. y'all got everything you'll ever need in abundance up there?

[malakai2]

91. Well, if we're talking trade here...

What do the southwestern states offer to the Great Lakes region? All I hear being discussed is one resource moving in one direction, with no guarantee that the mining of this necessary resource will be capped below a threshold at which diversion could damage the source region. I also don't see any discussion of the expense of shipping, and my guess is that the head loss in pumping uphill from 600 or 700 feet to a few thousand feet, over a distance of a couple thousand miles, will mean significant cost to be borne by a lot of people who don't benefit in any way.

If those facts aren't going to change, feel free to barter with Mexico for a few more CFS from the Colorado and Rio Grande.

[cynatnite]

17. Of course...stupid people and their kids should go thirsty...

:sarcasm:

[Fox Mulder]

18. Oh, so people here in the Midwest should go thirsty...

because people decided to move to a desert? A desert, for christssakes.

:eyes:

[cynatnite]

20. You're the one calling AZ and NM residents stupid...

and not wanting them to have any water. Never anywhere did I say that in my post.

There are ways to solve these problems without having to deprive people. You're like the RW blaming the teenage girl for getting pregnant rather than helping her.

[Fox Mulder]

21. Why not set up desal plants?

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Bullcrap.

If you move to the desert, then LIVE in a desert. That means, no golf courses. No lawns. No swimming pools. The environment was not designed for it.

It takes anywhere from 2-10 times the water to sustain the typical American lifestyle in the desert, the very place where that water does not naturally exist.

You can live in the green, in a wet climate, and deal with the cold winters, or you can live in the dry and enjoy a warm winter, but you can't have BOTH. Not at the expense of the general environment. Drain the great lakes and you devastate the environment and the climate of the entire NE United States.

[Critters2]

44. They're the ones who chose to go without adequate water,

when they move to a fucking DESERT!! Stupidity like that should NOT be rewarded.

[Critters2]

56. Building THIS in a desert is stupid.

My solution...No water for you!!

[Scout]

102. no one is saying they cannot have any water

we are saying that we do not want the Great Lakes water drained to water the southwest.

get over yourself

[Ptah]

54. Trade you some Arizona copper.

Oh, you don't live near a copper mine?

too bad, no copper for you.

[Scout]

103. Michigan has copper.... n./t

[RaleighNCDUer]

121. And of course, everyone in Phoenix works in the copper mines.

:eyes:

[galledgoblin]

24. no, just move back to the habitable areas they abandoned

the great lakes region has plenty of abandoned housing stock you can buy up and move into.

it's insanity to suggest draining the great lakes to irrigate the deserts of the south.

[Fox Mulder]

25. Agreed.

[cynatnite]

33. My uncle has lived in NM for 30 years...his daughter and grandchildren...

were born there.

[galledgoblin]

53. and if they want to stay there, fine...

get water the way the natives used to, through nighttime collections, deep deep wells, and use water only for necessities, not to keep green lawns and private swimming pools.

people lived in the southwest deserts for millenia without pumping water in from the great lakes.

you cannot live life in arid regions the same as life in damp regions.

[Enthusiast]

69. What % of the homes in Phoenix

What % of the homes in Phoenix Arizona have swimming pools? I rest my case!

[Fox Mulder]

71. What percent of the homes in Phoenix have green lawns?

[galledgoblin]

78. I have no idea, but it's insane to think that ANYONE owns a PRIVATE POOL

in the middle of a desert! I was just using pools as a prime example of misuse of water resources.

I'd be very interesting in seeing the official numbers, but outside of real estate property descriptions, I can't think of any public release of that information.

[SidDithers]

112. Google Earth pic of random neighbourhood in Phoenix...

Lotsa blue backyards in that pic.

Sid

[Enthusiast]

113. See, these people would squander

See, these people would squander precious fossil water for their swimming pools. There really is no sound argument for turning this water into such a commodity.

[Critters2]

115. Holy shit!! WTF is wrong with those people?!!

They're so blatantly wasting water, and they think they have some right to waste the Great Lakes, too? A little self-discipline would be a useful thing.

[Matariki]

128. I saw A LOT of pools in Phoenix and surrounding cities. What's your point?

[Enthusiast]

67. And it's time to move. nt

[Scout]

101. maybe they can drink the water they are using for their golf courses and swimming pools

get a fucking grip

:eyes:

[Whoa_Nelly]

23. A gaggle of geese, a hoarde of sippers...And now you know

am so glad that collective group has been defined...it's really been bothering me lately. :sarcasm:

[Ferd Berfle]

31. They've sucked so much water out of the Colorado that it no longer reaches the ocean

We will drain the Great Lakes if it's allowed.

Sorry Children - we live in a finite world- and we are reaching it's limit.

From the micro to the macro levels, from the cellular to population and resource usage Growth unchecked is called cancer.

Time to pay the piper.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Well put. nt

[Enthusiast]

70. Another +1 nt

[Enthusiast]

47. A line must be drawn here.

People of the Desert Southwest would use Great Lakes water until there was but a trickle left. Consider the Colorado River as an example. The population would expand until The Great Lakes become but a small stream running through the center of what was once great bodies of water.

[greenman3610]

52. People that live in the desert sw want our water to supply the fountains of Las vegas?

I don't think so.

and don't think it stops there.
The Arabs and Chinese want our water as well, and there
are plenty of GOP here willing to sell it to them.

The fact is that there exist traditional systems of water husbandry
that allow people to live in arid areas.
But they generally don't include golf courses, casino water parks,
and kentucky blue grass lawns.

People of the midwest will fight to preserve our water.
Deal with it.

[Ptah]

57. And we'll keep our copper.

No copper for you!

[Critters2]

58. I haven't asked for your copper.

Stop asking for our water.

[Ptah]

59. Whose copper do you depend on?

[Critters2]

61. If you decided not to make copper available, I'd have to learn to cope.

Just as you'll have to learn to cope without water.

You could move up here. But then you'd have to wear sweaters and shovel snow. And we can't have that.

[Ptah]

63. It would be un-christian to not share our natural resources.

[Critters2]

64. You moved to where the resources aren't available.

Water is available in other parts of the nation. You're responsible for your decision, and the consequences of that decision. It's called being an adult.

[Enthusiast]

75. Adult, what a concept! nt

[greenman3610]

76. well, then, the Iraqis should be happy to share their oil with us

maybe if we convert them to christianity, they'll get it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

122. It would be un-christian to loot your neighbors' resources. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

139. On second thought, it sounds VERY christian. nt

[gollygee]

125. Is it Christian to destory one area's ecosystem to fill swimming pools and water golf courses

in a desert?

[Book Lover]

136. Not being a christian,

I don't understand why you feel I should be constrained by those rules.

[Fox Mulder]

73. Michigan's copper.

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. The Anaconda mines in Chile. probably.

Unchecked growth in the SW is unsustainable. It is an ecological disaster. We can't do to the Great Lakes what the desert cities have already done to the Colorado River. It would be the ultimate in ecological irresponsibility.

[knitter4democracy]

130. Michigan still has plenty, actually.

Our's is some of the most pure on the planet. I think we'll be fine.

[Enthusiast]

74. You are right!

The GOP would literally sell Christ off the cross. And I mean that in my heart and know it to be true.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. And midwest water is already in short supply.

I've read that something like 90% of the Oglala aquifer is gone - reduced to contaminated dregs. The water that sustained the breadbasket of SD, NE, IA and KS is running dry and those croplands NEED that midwestern water - think THEY want to see their livelihoods blown away in dust storms just so Las Vegas and LA can have their swimming pools? And MI, MN et al are reluctant enough to see the water go to their immediate neighbors with whom they share their economies.

[ulysses]

77. I'd like to see a map

of all the world's regions in which population threatens to overwhelm the local resources in the next 50 years. That'd be interesting.

[Enthusiast]

80. Ulysses, it would be interesting.

It would also tell the vultures where to perch. It would tell the greedy what laws they need to enact to achieve their filthy ends.

[mdmc]

82. thanks for the link to this water war story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-water-warsmay27,0,4894872.story

[riverdeep]

89. I can't say that I blame people for moving to the Southwest.

When these places were set up, it was a different mentality. Nature was considered infinitely malleable and infinitely generous. Big Projects could reshape living arrangements any way at all. As we became a less agrarian society and more industrialized, the idea of natural limits was something we began to see as a distant memory. Many children today have no idea what food looks like in it's whole form other than from the packages. Air conditioning and heating mean that we can ignore the seasons if we choose. But it all comes back to the land.

"Recall that whatever lofty things you might accomplish today, you will do them only because you first ate something that grew out of dirt." -Barbara Kingsolver

Or, to put it another way, nature bats last.

I don't mean that we should go back to freezing in unheated cabins or sweltering in our sixteen hour days on a farm, but something WAS lost then- the idea that nature wasn't a technicality.

[nolabels]

92. It's inconvenient to farm and beside that work can hired out anyway

Just kidding :-)

My sister is a nurse but my brother-in-law is part of co-op farm in Kentucky. He threw in his dads four-hundred some acres with the rest (about 6,000 acres). They have this one big combine tractor they use that is all enclosed and quiet with air-conditioner, plush seating, plenty of room and a nice car stereo as standard equipment. Farming isn't what it used to be anymore. He says just about everything they do Monsanto or some other big corporation has a hand in anyway.

[Enthusiast]

116. Not to continue with the dead horse but

"Or, to put it another way, nature bats last."

This is a great analogy. You're so right, nature is not a technicality. Not even close.

It was not so long ago that every bit of meat on my table was venison I shot, field dressed and butchered. The farther we stray from nature the more skewed our perceptions become.

[Neshanic]

94. So you want to keep your water. Try keeping your populace that flees here.

I swear to God there are more people from Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio than people from places like the eastern seaboard. You seem to have no problem coming here to play golf and swim in the huge resort pools all winter, then move here. Nobody is forcing your inhabitants to move here.

When the economy goes sideways like in the late 80's, everyone and their brother from the midwest came here. Then the wave of equity refugees from California in the 90's and the housing bubble. Do we tie you up and keep you hostage to stay in Arizona after visiting?

Last time I looked you residents of the Great lakes are no prize winners in keeping your own precious water clean. Can you swim in Lake Erie? Also tell us how that prarie grass native lawn of yours is doing in front and the back, you know the one without the exotic green lawn?

Spread the word. Don't move here. Don't vacation here.

[Scout]

104. if you're an example of the people we will find, no problem

i have family in Phoenix, and when I fly in to visit the haze of air pollution hanging over the valley obscures the view ... then when I'm there, the coughing and the watery eyes from the pollution are so pleasant!

no problems, i'll stay in Michigan

[Marrah_G]

111. No problem- I don't do well in intense heat and sun.

I plan to stay right here in New England. Ocean-lakes-mountains-forests. Perfection !

[knitter4democracy]

131. We lost jobs to you, that's why.

People from MI are moving there to have jobs. It's that simple. Our state is dying, economically, so people are leaving.

As for Lake Erie, yes, it's much cleaner now. People swim in it safely all the time. Same with all the lakes.

[Ikonoklast]

144. Lake Erie is one of the cleanest fresh-water lakes

Yes, you can swim in Lake Erie. You can fish in Lake Erie, you can vacation on the shore and islands of Lake Erie.

And the drinking water drawn from Lake Erie consistently wins taste tests for the best drinking water, even beating bottled water in blind tests.

And, if it wasn't for my federal tax dollars susidizing your water, you wouldn't have any.

[tokenlib]

95. The shorter, warmer winters are lowering the water levels in the Great Lakes...

One way in which the lakes retain water is by freezing over in the winter. Now with the lakes remaining with more open water in the warmer winters--a lot more evaporation takes place which helps leave us with record low lake levels. The lower levels are hurting shipping as ships have to carry less cargo.

Water is a finite resource--like oil--and we're going to have to decide about our priorities.

[Enthusiast]

117. Can you envision foreign tankers

Can you envision foreign tankers sucking up loads of fresh water to return to the Middle East with a stealth cargo? Could happen, and soon.

[knitter4democracy]

132. Rumor has it that it's already happening.

It's all the talk up north--ships riding high but not seeming to go to any port then coming back through the Straits riding low. Hmm.

[Enthusiast]

135. It is a frightening prospect.

Like we can police the Great Lakes. We can't even monitor the border. We need the military here!

[Evoman]

118. This is a message from your friendly neighbourhood Canadian:

IT IS NOT YOUR FUCKING WATER.

Thank you. That is all.

[LeftHander]

123. Agreed....no water for Golf Courses in the desert SW

That is where the water will end up....if it leaves the basin.

[gollygee]

124. People forget that the water doesn't belong to the US

As if it were up to the great lakes states and no one else.

[knitter4democracy]

133. Damn straight.

When I was a kid, I thought Canada and Michigan were their own country for the longest time. I mean, we could use your change, right? It took me going to California and getting screamed at when I tried to use a Canadian dime to finally understand.

[Hidden Stillness]

137. That's Right--We ARE Our Own Country Up Here

This is one of the great "secrets" of this issue, and others, and that is that people in the Northern, border States--Midwest and Northeast, I know, and Northwest I believe it is also--feel like and identify more with Canadians, and feel that we are more like Canada up here, than we do about the South or Southwest U.S. States sometimes. Like many border-States Americans, I am so grateful for our great neighbor Canada, I love it when they stand up to Bush/Cheney, I take it to heart when they critcize us, because unlike so many countries, Canadians do not just venomously hate us as a stereotype. We are more like Canadians up here than we are like people from California or Mississippi, for example--as a matter of fact, for years I have had a saying that "Canadians and Midwesterners are the same thing," because that was how I thought of it. If you live in Southeastern Michigan where you have contact with the CBC, for example, and good journalism and news coverage, you really feel the similarity. People go back and forth from Michigan to Ontario, to work, because they have family or friends on the other side of the border, to go to entertainment or sports things, etc., all the time. I love Canada. I worry that the NHL is becoming "too American" and cutting the Canadian teams out of the Stanley Cup playoff every year, just as if I were a Canadian, etc. A lot of us feel that way up here--on a lot of issues, we are on the Canadians' side!

[knitter4democracy]

141. Totally!

I have Canadian knitting friends, and we have so many more similarities with Canada than much of the rest of the country.

[ozone_man]

134. The desert states have to develop sustainable lifestyles.

It's a symptom of our consumer society that people want to water their golf courses or lawns, when there is little water, or they want to drive big SUV's and over long distance commutes from the suburbs. It's time for some reverse migration of this desert pollutation back to where there is water. These people can put coats on in the Winter. We need to stop development in the South West U.S., where there is no more water, and in other places like Florida and Southern California. Georgia is experiencing droughts too.

Part of a sustainable society is a limiting population growth. We already have several times too many people on the Earth, so it's time to implement (at the global level) sex education, birth control, family planning and incentives to not over populate. It's time to no longer be fruitful and multiply, an idea perpetuated by religion, but time to promote ecological balance, where all species are equally valued, not just humans.

In a nutshell, we have to stop being so selfish. It won't be easy.

[L0oniX]

138. Lake Michigan is Chicago's sewage treatment plant.

[LSK]

140. and nobody shits in Wisconsin?

:shrug:

[L0oniX]

143. I was just going for the largest city along Lake Michigan. I'm sure Milwaukee beer drinkers

contribute a hell of a lot. :evilgrin:

[flvegan]

145. Individual states making decisions about access to navigable waters like these.

Very interesting.

It'll make for a fine, expensive lawsuit one day I'm sure.

[Mendocino]

146. John Wesley Powell

The great scientist and explorer came to to the conclusion 130 years ago that the SW was incapable of sustaining the kind of development that we are seeing in that region today. He was right. Sending water there, to the detriment of any other region, is ecologically reckless.

[dbackjon]

149. Jesus - there are a lot of self-righeous republican acting ASSHOLES in this thread

Some of us moved from the Great Lakes region to Arizona for our HEALTH. So fuck ya all calling me stupid.

[NutmegYankee]

150. I wouldn't say that. It's just a passionate issue.

People argue that they need to drink, and argue in their own self interest. This annoys the people around the great lakes who are rightly concerned about the destruction of their economy and environment. One needs only look at the horrors of the Aral Sea (or what is left of it) to understand. As the Aral drained, shipping stopped and all the PCBs and other industrial waste covered by sediment became airborne dust and covered the larger region with contamination.

The fact is that the water from the Great Lakes cannot be moved without draining the Great Lakes to the point of uncovering toxic sediment no longer covered by the lake and making shipping routes and harbors unnavigable. There is already concern that the lakes levels are falling.

Combine this horror with the known misuse of water in portions of the South West and the constant counterargument of "we're thirsty, we need to drink" or complaints of winter and you are going to see angry posts like that. Passion does that to people.


I myself live in New England, and enjoy the benefits of ample farmland and water. The trade off is a nasty winter. The way through it is my electric heat from the Nuclear power plant about 7 miles away. As for trips outdoors in winter, you just learn to dress right for 2 degree F weather. I actually love mornings that are around 15 degrees F and below. The air is usually so dry that frost doesn't form on the windshield, so I can just get in the car and drive to work.

[galledgoblin]

151. I don't mind if some people have to live in desert areas

I had JRA as a kid, I understand how the cold wet winters of the northeast can make people with medical issues miserable.

but it's pretty ridiculous to move out to the desert and then irrigate and air condition until the environment is pretty much the same residents moved to escape!

people lived for thousands of years in the southwest without modern amenities, modern residents need to turn to the old methods and develop a sustainable way of life- that'll also probably mean a lot fewer residents but it'll also mean an end to the sprawling nightmare suburbs and life will probably actually become much easier for residents.

[dbackjon]

154. So you don't use any modern amenities in your house?

No electricity? No central heating? Does everything you use and consome come from your immediate neighborhood?

[galledgoblin]

156. I consider the northeast-great lakes region to be my neighborhood

and for the most part, except for one-time purchase luxuries (like computer parts), what I use and consume does in fact come from my area...

[Toucano]

155. Hark! The forthcoming invasion of Canada! n/t

[seasat]

158. What is needed is tertiary water treatment along with conservation.

Climate change will bring about changes in water distribution. Some areas that were previously wet may be dry and some dry areas may have more precipitation. Lowering consumption of fossil fuels will require greater urban densities resulting in greater demands on water supplies in those areas. The best solution is conservation and tertiary water treatment. Tertiary water treatment means taking the waste water and treating it until it becomes potable tap water. Conservation means no grass lawns watered with hundreds of gallons of water along with other community measures.

It's a shame that the presidential candidates aren't really addressing this important issue. The only one that talked about water issues was Governor Richardson. However, when discussing creating a cabinet position to deal with water issues before a Las Vegas crowd, he mentioned that "Wisconsin is awash in water." In the context of his speech and proposals in his platform, he was using it as an example of how negotiations might be better between states with a national water policy and a central federal mediator instead of the hodge podge of agencies that we have now. His proposals were heavy on conservation with no mention of forcing states to share water. Unfortunately, some folks with an agenda to push, immediately interpreted that comment as Richardson supporting running a giant pipeline or aqueduct running 1200 miles from the Great Lakes to Las Vegas. Richardson immediately issued a statement restating his position that water rights remained within the area of the basin and that he did not support changing that.

Never mind the fact that a 1200 mile water transport system would cost probably over 50 billion dollars and be an environmental disaster with little net gain for the parched region. Only an idiot would consider such a plan viable. While prone to sticking a foot in his mouth occasionally, Richardson is not an idiot. He also has the best environmental credentials of any of our 2008 candidates. The way his statement was taken completely out of context and lied about, pretty much shut down any talks about water policy by the candidates. It was already a politically volatile issue to address and the way Richardson was raked over the coals for saying we need a national water policy, reinforced the fears that the other candidates had on addressing the issue.